Skip to main content

Full text of "The Annesley case"

See other formats


Rotable iSngligb ITrtalg 



The Annesley Case 



NOTABLE 
ENGLISH TRIALS. 



The Stauntons. Edited by j. B. 
Atlay, M.A., Barrisler-at-Law. 

Franz MuUer. Edited by H. B. 
living, l\l.A.(Oxon). 

Lord Lovat, Edited by David N. 
Mackay, Solicitor. 

William Palmer. Edited by 
Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law. 

The Annesley Case. Edited by 
Andrew Lang. 

Dr. Lamson. Edited by H. L. 
Adam. 

Mrs. Maybrick. Edited by H. B. 
Irving, M.A.(Oxon). 

Mary Blandy. Edited by William 
Roughead. 




f/^/fi' '/it^/.mr ^^r J^/ - j^oc^f^fft/ffff ft/a- ~.— . 



James Aunesley 
(From a mezzotint portrait by Brooks). 



The 
Annesley Case 



EDITED BY 

Andrew Lanor 

o 




EDINBURGH AND LONDON 

WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY 



PRINTED BY 

WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY 

GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 

1912 



^1 



31 



PREFACE. 

Purists or patriots may conceivably demur to the inclusion in 
a series of English Trials of the Annesley Case, tried in Ireland. 
As the nature of the law and of its administration was not that 
of the Brehons, these ancient Hibernian jurists, but of the 
English Courts, it is hoped that the circumstances may plead in 
favour of the appearance of the case among English Trials. The 
law in Ireland during the eighteenth century was English, and 
the persons whose interests were at stake, the family of Annesley, 
were neither Irish speakers nor of Irish blood. The case is too 
curious to be omitted. 

The Editor owes much to the success of Miss E. M. Thompson, 
who discovered the hitherto unpublished affidavits of 174G ; and 
desires to thank W. Roughead, Esq., W.S., for his kindness in 
drawing up the chronology of the Annesley Case. 

A. L. 



'■\GGniGG 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 

James Annesley (from a mezzotint portrait by Brooks), - Frontispiece 

The Right Hon. Lord Chief Baron Bowes, - - - facing page 60 

Daniel MacKercher (from a mezzotint portrait by Brooks), ,, 1 16 

James Annesley (from a line engraving by Bickham), - ,, 17fj 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Introduction — 

1. Dramatis Personse, 1 

2. The Annesleys, - 5 

3. Preliminaries, .--.-.-... g 

4. The Althams in Ireland, ---.-... g 

5. ^!r. MacKercher, 11 

6. The Staines Homicide, -------- 13 

7. The Aflair at the Ciirragh, ------- 16 

8. The Two Views of the Case, 20 

9. The Great Trial, 21 

10. The Claimant's Witnesses, ------- 23 

11. Major Fitzgerald, - - - 28 

12. Other Witnesses, 31 

13. The Claimant after February, 1716, 37 

14. The Staines Shooting, 43 

15. The Defendant's Witnesses, 45 

16. Mary Heath, 50 

17. Speeches of Counsel, - - - - 55 

18. The Judges' Addresses, 60 

19. The Trial of Mary Heath for Perjury, 62 

Two unpublished Affidavits, -------- 73 

Conclusion, 76 

Leading Dates in the Case, 81 

The Trial— 

The Declaration, - - - 84 



Evidence for the Plaintiff. 



Dorothy Briscoe, 
Henrietta Cole, 
Alice Bates, 
Catharine MacCormick, 
Charles MacCarthy, 
Major Fitzgerald, - 
John Turner, - 
Dennis Redmonds, - 
Margaret Sutcliffe, - 
Mary Doyle, 
DeV)orah Annesley, - 
Thomas Barns, 
Southwell Pigot, 
Philip Brecn, - 
Eleanor Murphy, 
Christopher Brown, 
John Scott, 

Joan JjJiHaii, 105, 

Thomas Brooks, 
Laurence Misset, 
Jamea Walsh, ■ 
James Cavanagli, 
James l)empsey, 
Charles Byrne, 
James Cavaiiagh, 
Nicholas DufiFe, 



- 86, 90 


Catherine O'Neile, - 


121 


- 86, 90, 253 


John BjTne, - 


- 123 


87 


Charity Blake, 


- 124 


88 


Edward Lutwich, - 


- 125 


91 


Bartholomew Furlong, 


126 


91 


Earl of Mount Alexander, 


- 127 


92, 251 


Margaret Hodgers, - 


128 


94, 250 


Thomas Bj'rne, 


129, 133 


95 


Michael Waldron, - 


131 


95, 249 


Barnaby Dunn, 


132 


96 


Patrick Plunket, 


- 133 


97 


Amos Bush, 


- 136 


98 


Dominick Farrell, - 


- 137 


98 


John Purcell, - 


- 140 


99, 248 


Silcross Ash, - 


147 


100, 105 


Mark Byrne, - 


- 148 


- 105 


James Reilly, - 


150 


183, 193, 249 


George Babe, - 


- 154 


109 


Andrew Crommy, - 


- 155 


1 1 1 


Henry (ionne, - 


156 


N3 


Hichard Tighc, 


- 157 


111 


John Broders, - 


- 15!» 


116 


John Gilfard, - 


159, 161 


119 


Abel Butler, - 


160 


119 


.loshua Barton, 


11)0 


119 









CONT 


ENTS. 






EvideiKt lor the Defendant. 












PAGE 


Nicholas Loftus, 


170, 243 


247 


William Rowles, 


219 


Tlionias Palliscr, sen. 


, 


170 


Michael Downes, 


220, 245 


William Wall, 




174 


Patrick Furlong, 


224 


Aaron Lambert, 




177 


Arthur Herd, - 


225 


William Kims, 




181 


Henry Brown, - 


229 


Anne (iiffard, - 




ISO 


Thomas Strong, 


229 


Catlierini' Lambert, 




189 


Thomas Barret, 


230 


John Kerr, 




190 


WMlliam Napper, 


231 


Thomas Palliser, juii 


191 


194 


(leorgo Brehan, 


232 


Tiiomas Rolph, 


19b 


248 


Elizabeth MacMulle 


n, 233 


Owen Cavanagh, 




201 


Matthew Derenzay, 


23(5 


Anthony Dyer, 




202 


James Medlioott, 


236 


Mary Heath, - 


205, 241 


253 


Colonel Becket, 


237 


Robert King, - 


- 


211 


Wentworth Harnian 


237 


Elizabeth Molloy, - 




212 


Christopher Stone, 


- 238 


Martin Neif, - 




213 


Harniah Shaw, 


- 238 


Anne Caulfield, 




218 








Further Evidence for the Plaintiff . 




Ca;sar Colelough, 




239 


William Stephens, 


243 


John Hussey, - 




239 


William Houghton, 


244 


Mary Heath, - 




241 


John Ryan, 


244 


Thomas Higsinson, - 
Nicholas Loftus, 


. 


242 


Michael Downes, 


245 


■ 


243 








Recalled by 


the Court. 




Nicholas Loftus, 




247 


Dennis Redmonds, 


250 


Eleanor Murphy, 




248 


John Turner, - 


251 


Thomas Rolph, 




248 


Mary Heath, - 


253 


Mary Doyle, - 




249 


Henrietta Cole, 


253 


Joan Laffan, - 




249 







Speeches for the Defendant. 

Mr. Prime-Serjeant Malone, 255 

Mr. Solicitor-General, -.-.... 274 

Mr. Eaton Staiiyard, 279 

SpKCches for the Plaintijj. 

Mr. Serjeant Marshall, - - 284 

Mr. Serjeant Tisdall, - . . . . - - - 294 

Mr. Philip Walsh, - - 303 

Addresstfi by the Court. 

The Lord Chief Baron, 307 

Mr. Baron Mounteney, 327 

Mr. Baron Dawson, -...-.... 342 

The Verdict, - 346 

APPENDIX. 



Extracts from the Trial of Mary Heath — 



Thtnnas Higgins(jn, - 
Rev. William Hervey, 
Sarah Sweeny, 
John Tench, 
James Walsh, - 



348 
3.54 
357 
360 
360 



Penelope Halpen, 
Caisar Colelough, 
John Cliffc, 
Thomas Bourk, 
John Masterton, 



363 
364 
366 

368 
370 



THE GREAT ANNESLEY CASE. 

I. 

Introductory. Dramatis Personae. 

The great Annesley case, the set of four trials in 1742-1745, 
connected with the claim of James Annesley to be the legitimate 
son and heir of Arthur Lord Altham {oh. 1727), as against 
Richard de facto Earl of Anglesea, younger brother of Arthur 
Lord Altham, is almost forgotten. Few readers care to wade 
through the very badly edited reports in many columns of The 
State Trials (vols, xvii., xviii., 1813), and to compare them 
with the various discrepant versions in contemporary books of 
1743-1745. The records of the trials, it is true, have an 
interest for the compilers of histories of society in Ireland in 
the first half of the eighteenth century, but even these hunters 
of anecdotage cannot find opulent gleanings. Our wicked Lords 
Altham and Anglesea lived in muddy backwaters far from the 
central stream of social and political history. 

The opening chapters of our chronicle are of the years 1713- 
1716. Great events were occurring. Harley, and St. John, 
and Dean Swift if they could have held together; if Harley 
had not wavered, if Bolingbroke could have been steady in 
anything but personal ambition and love of pleasure, might 
have brought King James from over the water, and disappointed 
the hopes of George Elector of Hanover. But " how does 
Fortune banter us!" wrote Bolingbroke. Queen Anne died 
(Ist August, 1714) when the Tories were quarrelling among 
themselves, and it was George I. who crossed the water, and 
it was Swift who had to Hlink back across St. George's Channel 
to Dublin, and Ormonde and Bolingbroke who were driven to 
fly to France. 

All this was nothing to the persons in our story. The death 
of Queen Anne was only a kind of landmark by which, in 1743, 



The Annesley Case. 

decayed servants and other ignorant witnesses — bribed or 
intimidated — tried to establish the chronology of their wan- 
dering narratives in the great trial. The eclipse of the sun 
(22nd April. 1715) was another landmark in the midst of 
memories and inventions, but though the witnesses on both 
sides were manifestly "coached" as to what they were to 
swear, to make them remember years by their numbers — 
1713, 1714, 1715, 1716 — was found impossible, or was not 
attempted. The figures 1715 did not, to them, recall the 
Jacobite Rising under the Earl of Mar. The better educated 
did remember an Irish trial in April, 1715 (before the Rising), 
in which certain gentlemen of Wexford and Father Downes 
were acquitted of a charge of raising recnaits for " the Pre- 
tender " or for French service. I have tried to find political 
or religious bias — Hanoverian or Jacobite, Catholic or Pro- 
testant — in the evidence, but such things do not appear to be 
elements in the medley of perjured testimony. Lord Altham, 
the alleged father, natural or legitimate, of the romantic 
claimant in the case, was beneath politics; some of his motley 
crowd of huntsmen, grooms, and hangers-on of the lowest kind 
were more political than he. 

His lordship, the heir apparent to the earldom of Anglesea, 
and his lordship's wife, Mary Sheffield, a natural daughter of 
the Duke of Buckingham, were " outsiders " : were outside 
of everything. The patrician was destitute of social pre- 
judices ; was " hail fellow well met " with a hairdresser, and a 
charwoman, and the parish priest, Father Dovmes, as well as 
with his own servants, man and woman, Pooty and Juggy. 
The county families, as a rule, held aloof from a nobleman so 
regardless of ranks and orders, of truth, honour, and honesty. 
He swilled brandy and mead with surgeons lost to self-respect, 
with parasites of low degree. He is even said to have shared 
his mistress with his butler, hie dog-boy, and his brother, the 
Hon. Captain Annesley, as Earl of Anglesea the defendant in 
the trial of 1743, and a more cold-hearted, though not perhaps 
a more brutal ruffian, than himself. 

Probably this Lord Altham, the putative father of the 
claimant, was never sober, but we know that a respected 
Scottish judge, when put on a regimen of water drinking, dis- 
covered that he had never previously been entirely sober during 



Introduction. 

his judicial career. Lord Altham, with all his estates and all 
his expectations, was for ever " outrunning the constable," 
always borrowing, always trying to raise money by the shabby 
devices of his kind. 

Those were days in which, said the counsel for the defendant, 
you might go fifty miles on Irish ground and never find, in 
bullion, a half-guinea, though a coin of that denomination was 
undeniably possessed by one of the witnesses, who conferred it 
(quite blamelessly) on a pretty girl. In 1728 Lord Altham's 
brother and successor, wishing to bribe two venal constables, 
was obliged to send an emissary on a walk of three miles to 
borrow a guinea from the too confiding keeper of a pothouse 
near Dublin. Yet Lord Altham drove his coach and six, 
and kept a pack of hounds ; each hound, we are told, yearning 
to sate his maw with the flesh of any other member of the 
pack. His lordship had a household of transitory domestics, 
who never stayed long with him, though his house was Liberty 
Hall. He did not pay their wages, or his manners and 
language were intolerable even to persons by no means over- 
refined. He did hunt with his starving pack and his riff-rafi 
of hangers-on — that is the best thing we can say for Lord 
Altham, except that nothing shows him to have been oppressive 
to his tenantiy, which is strange. In 1717, to be sure, some- 
body took a shot at him through a window, destroying one 
of his eyes, but we do not learn that the somebody was his 
tenant. He was indiscriminately hospitable, it must be ad- 
mitted ; he had a lazy good-nature and a preposterously violent 
temper, no sense of honour, no self-control, and less brains 
than a rabbit. He was a little, black, very noisy nobleman. 
At no time, in no country, can he have been of a common 
type ; his title, even in his period, won for him no respect or 
consideration. He was allowed to exist, but no man regarded 
him. None loved him, or mourned him, or even hated him. 

He was not Irish by blood ; he was English by blood ; there 
is no romance in him ; for him there existed no feudal attach- 
ment. He had not even a banshee to interest herself in his 
fortunes 1 Ixjrd Altham ought to have been portrayed by the 
pen of Thackeray. 

As regards the central jjroljlem of the case — had he a son 
bom in marriage or not? — he spoke with two voices, affirmed 

3 



The Annesley Case. 

and denied, and what he said — "yea" or "nay" — is not 
evidence ; he was a liar from the beginning;. 

His brother and successor, the defendant, later exhibits hia 
character in his works, and of a blacker heart we have few 
examples. Counsel for the claimant and, in two trials, the 
judges spoke quite freely about the wickedness of this noble- 
man ; and his moral badness was only matched by his unprece- 
dented folly. Both brothers by their unvarying falseness, 
treachery, and evil temper seem actually to have sought the 
troubles which fell upon them. The younger like the older 
peer was surrounded by parasites who did his dirty work and, 
when opportunity and temptation occurred, betrayed him ; 
one mocked in open Court at his cowardice. The conversa- 
tion of both nobles was double-shotted with oaths and 
obscenities. Both seem to have been cowards. Lord Altham 
ran away from the challenge of his victim, young Palliser, 
who returned from a visit to Dunmaine minus part of his ear, 
covered with blood, and with bruises mflicted by the grooms. 
Lord Anglesey, in the " ruction " at the Curragh, quailed 
before the claimant's backer, the soft-spoken hero of SherifE- 
muir fight, Mr. Mackercher, " the melting Scott " of Smollett's 
satire, The Reproof. Charles Reade, in his novel, The Watu- 
dering Heir, makes the great Mackercher an obscure Irish 
attorney, who says " alanna." Mr. Reade used to brag end- 
lessly about his immense historical researches ; had he not read 
Peregrine PicHe ? 

The women are worthy of the men. About half of them 
seem to have perjured themselves, from passion, or stupidity, 
or for reward. Mary Heath, the strength of the defendant's 
case, gave evidence with excitement and bias, but she had, 
at least, been faithful as maid to the unhappy Lady Altham 
through her lonely years of poverty and infirmity. Her 
ladyship's own character " was not suflScient for two," though 
on that head as little as possible was revealed. We hear of 
oceans of drink, but we do not hear of gambling, the common 
vice of the women of the age. We have no glimpses of 
fashionable society either in Dublin or in the country ; the 
Althams were beyond the pale. The " trigamy," as Charles 
Reade calls it, of Lord Anglesea is not brought before us. 
Throughout there is scarcely a gleam of Irish humour among 
4 



Introduction. 

the hundreds of peasants and servants who give their puzzle- 
headed evidence. In that fighting society we never hear of 
a duel, though two challenges are given. 

Of the hero, " the Wandering Heir," the claimant, calling 
himself James Annesley, we see very little, but twice we behold 
him running away, once when the slightest presence of mind 
would have saved him from a charge of murder. He could have 
known very little of the truth concerning his claims to the 
Earldom of Anglesea, for since his earliest recollections he had 
lived apart from his mother (whoever she was) with a father 
incapable of truth, Lord Altham ; and among servants not 
more veracious. 

Such, with a mixed multitude of grooms, servants, colonels, 
squires, squireens, and their ladies, are our characters. One, 
however, Mr. Mackercher, has later a section to himself. The 
mist of falsehoods was so dense that judges and juries lost 
their way in it, and two precisely contradictory verdicts are 
recorded. -The great law suit finally loses itself in the sands ; 
it remained undecided ; the title and estates never came to 
the claimant ; they were muddled away among the Annesleys. 



II. 

The Annesleys. 

The Annesleys were of an old family in Nottinghamshire. 
Annesley, in that county, in Byron's time and before it, was 
in the hands of the Chaworths, one of whom, we know, was 
killed in a duel without seconds in an ill-lighted room of an 
inn by "the wicked Lord Byron." The heiress was later 
Mary Chaworth, about whom the poet Byron wrote so much 
verse and gossiped so much. The first Earl of Anglesea, 
Arthur Anne.sley, a politician of the Restoration, was created 
earl by Charles H. He had great possessions, and five sons — 
James, Altham, Richard, Arthur, and Charles. The first 
earl " having made very large acquisitions, sufficient to 
support two distinct families, prcKiured the baronage of Altham 
for his second son Altham and his issue male, witli a 
remainder over to his third son Richard." The first Lord 

5 



The Annesley Case. 



Altham had no male issue, and the title and estates went to 
his brother Richard, whose son Arthur Lord Altham was the 
putative father of the claimant, James, calling himself 
Annesley. This second Lord Altham dying in 1727, was 
succeeded by his brother Richard, later Earl of Anglesea, the 
" Uncle Dick" of the claimant. The first Earl of Anglesea, 
Arthur, was succeeded by his eldest son James, who left three 
sons — James, John, and Arthur. The eldest of these, James, 
third Earl of Anglesea, " levied fines, and suffered common 
recovery of his estates, and thereby docked the entail created 
by his father's marriage settlement, and made himself actual 
tenant in fee-simple. Afterwards (1701) he made several wills 
and codicils ' ' (of the most casual and helpless perplexity) * ' and 
having no issue male of his own, he thereby limited his estates, 
upon the failure of issue male of his brother Arthur, to go 
to the Altham branch." 

"It is hereditary in this nobleman's family to have no 
children," as an Irish critic observed, and when Arthur suc- 
ceeded to the earldom he had no issue male. He very 
strongly detested, with good reason, both Arthur Lord Altham, 
father of the claimant, and the claimant's Uncle Dick. This 
Arthur Earl of Anglesea died in 1737, surviving the 
claimant's father {oh. 1727) by ten years. Uncle Dick thus 
succeeded to the title of Anglesea, but was involved through 
the unintelligible codicils of Earl James (1701) in a wilderness 
of law suits with other Annesleys, especially Francis and 
Charles. What he could call his own was extremely uncertain, 
and the whole family had a passion for litigation. In 1737, 
at the death of Arthur Earl of Anglesea, the claimant's address 
was " British Plantations, North America," whither he had 
been transported in 1728, at the age of thirteen, by his Uncle 
Dick, who hoped to hear no more of him. 

III. 

Preliminaries. 

The affair of the claimant was thus of the most romantic and 
popular kind. The question was whether an ill-treated lad, 
James Annesley, long an indentured slave in our transatlantic 
6 



Introduction. 

plantations, or whether Richard Earl of Anglesea de facto, a 
person certainly of the most execrable character, was the true 
heir of the earldom and of vast but encumbered estates. 

The natural man within us takes part with romance and 
the claimant. The evidence of history, however, proves that 
almost all such romantic claimants are not in the right. The 
Douglas claimant is of the few who have won their cause. 

Hundreds of witnesses were heard at the trial, and Charles 
Reade says almost truly that " the judges had before them the 
greatest mass of perjury ever delivered in Great Britain." He 
meant " in Ireland," and certainly the volume and variety of 
perjury exceed any example except in the cases connected with 
Titus Gates's "Popish plot." 

Assuredly there was abundance of perjury on both sides. 
Apart from the deliberate sale of falsehoods on oath in the 
Annesley case, the contradictions of testimony were easily 
explicable, and were, in fact, inevitable. 

In the sole question to be determined, namely, was James 
Annesley, the claimant of the Anglesea title and property, the 
son of Lady Altham, wife of Lord Altham, the defendant's 
elder brother, or not? — the events, by 1743, were very remote 
in time. The claimant, whoever his mother may have been, 
was born in 1715. The trial was in 1743, twenty-eight years 
after the event. Thus, even granting that all the witnesses 
on both sides weie honest (and many were dishonest), there 
was room for countless hallucinations of memory; all the more 
as many important witnesses were uneducated Irish people of 
very low social status, while most of the others were deeply 
prejudiced and interested. It followed that most witnesses 
were untrustworthy ; many were open to the influences of fear 
and favour ; and these influences were freely exercised by both 
parties to the case. Quan-els within the Annesley family 
biassed its members and their neighbours, gentle and simple, 
80 that, partly through lapse of time and partly through the 
passions aroused, the evidence was in a high degiee confusing. 

Lord Chief Baron Bowes, in summing up and addressing the 
jury (gentlemen of landed estate), recommended them to test 
the evidence in a way which, unluckily, was quite impossible 
in this instance. He said, " If I was upon the jury I should 
lay before me and consider tlie story as told on each side. 

7 



The Annesley Case. 

I should coueider how far the story on one hand, independent 
of the u^itnesses, exceeded the other in point of probability. If 
on either hand the story told appeared extremely improbable, 
I should then require from that side the strongest proof 
imaginable, and that because probability ought to weigh, ex- 
cept it be contradicted by testimony not to be doubted of ; 
and therefore, if on either side the story should be extremely 
improbable, and probable on the other side, I should give mv 
opinion on the side of probability." Unfortunately, each 
Btory was extremely improbable; and on neither side was " the 
strongest proof imaginable " produced, owing to lapse of time, 
and, as was observed by one of the judges, owing to the con- 
spicuous bias and eagerness of witnesses on both sides. 

On one hand and on the other the stories were incredible, 
if estimated by our common knowledge of human nature in 
general. The characters of the chief actors in the drama were 
so eccentric, decadent, abnormal, mutable, and conscienceless 
that their conduct was bound to be always in a high degree 
improbable. There was no action so inconsistent, unwise, 
cruel, or infamous of which they were not capable. It was only 
probable that they would always take the most improbable 
and inexplicable course. 

Thus the jury was deprived and we are deprived of the test 
of probability. The maddest things were probable I The 
Lord Chief Baron was perfectly aware of this circumstance. 
" It will be proper for you gentlemen," he said, " while you 
are considering this case, to take v/ith you the characters of 
the actors in it, and thence to judge what was or was not to be 
expected from them.''^ He did not add that there was 
nothing so felonious and idiotic that it might not be expected 
from them. But, no doubt, that idea was in his mind. On 
the whole, with all allowances, the case for the romantic 
claimant was perhaps rather the more improbable of the two, 
though even here I hesitate. 

Once more, in Howell's State Trials (vols, xvii., xviii., 1813), 
the records of the cases (for the trial of November, 1743, was 
only the largest star in a constellation of four) are not co- 
herent, are faulty, and do not apprise us of many facts neces- 



J See page 326. 
8 



Introduction. 

sary to be known. In a footnote I give the names and 
nature of our sources, which are quite bewildering. ^ 

On the other hand, we may use, with much caution, the 
ninety-seventh chapter of Peregrine Pickle, by Smollett (1751). 
In this long narrative the patriotic author of The Tears of 
Scotland describes and defends a friend of his, a Scot who 
plays the foremost part in conducting the claimant's case. 
The Scot is Mr. Mackercher — Mackercher being a form of Mac 
Fearachar or Farquhar, so that Mr. Mackercher was a member 
of the great warlike clan of Farquharson. Concerning Mr. 
Mackercher the official records leave us asking, que diahle 
allait il faire dans cette galere? and Smollett alone explains, 
though as he was a friend, a Scottish patriot, and a novelist, we 
must give his explanation " but a doubtsome trust." 

IV. 
The Althams in Ireland. 

In approaching the trial of 1743 we must first sketch the story 
which in that trial reached its culmination, though it led to 
no practical results for the victorious cla.imant, and though 
the verdict of 1743 was damaged by the verdict of a trial 
in 1745. 

Richard Annesley, third Earl of Altham in the peerage of 
Ireland, had. as we saw, two sons, Arthur Lord Altham, the 
alleged father of the claimant, calling himself " James 



1 SoTTRCES. — We naturally turn first to A Complete Collection of State 
Trials, compiled by T. B. Howell, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A., in which the 
four Annesley Trials are given ; vol. xvii. xviii., 1813. But the chief 
trial, that of November, 1743, " is badly reported by Howell," says 
Charles Reade. He therefore used the Report in Folio (Knapton, 
Longman, and others, London, 1744. Smith & Bradley, Dublin, 1744). 
This version is excellent in its verbatim reports of the examinations of 
the witnesses, and contaiiiK essential matter omitted not only by Howell, 
but in The Trial at Bar, an octavo published in London, 1744, for 
R. Walker (there is an earlier edition, London, 1743). But the reports 
of the speeches of counsel are in places better given in The Trial at 
Bar, while in that volume the speeches of the judges are badly sum- 
mariiied. The Trial at Bar advertises an account of the claimant's 
adventures in exile, " done in the manner of a novel." This may be 
disregarded. 

9 



The Annesley Case. 

Annesley," and Richard, who succeeded later (1737) to the 
earldom of Anglosca, and was the defendant in the case. On 
21st July, 170G, Lord Altham married Mary Sheffield, natural 
daughter of the Duke of Buckingham, a lady described in the 
trials now as handsome, and noAv as homely, Smollett assures 
us (and Lord Altham in the trial is reported as corroborating) 
that the marriage was detested by Arthur Earl of Anglesea, 
the head of the liouse, who hated the Duke of Buckingham. 
The married pair lived for some time in England, where 
Smollett represents Lord Altham (who was " very capable of 
having it happen to him ") as squandering his wife's fortune 
and running deep into debt. He was always in debt, always 
impecunious. The pair were on the worst terms, and, if 
Smollett is to be credited, charges trumped up by Lord 
Altham's mother and sisters against his wife induced him to 
sue for a divorce. If this be true (and there are other testi- 
monies that Lady Altham's character was dubious), Lord 
Altham came to believe that he had been deceived in suspect- 
ing his wife. In 1713 Lady Altham sailed to Ireland, and 
towards the end of the year was reconciled to her lord, lived 
with him in the house of a Captain Briscoe in Dublin, and, 
about Christmas Eve, 1713, went with him to a place in County 
Wexford, Dunmaine, within some four miles of the town of 
Ross. Here Lord Altham was the tenant of Aaron Lambert, 
Esq., a witness in the case. 

According to the claimant's case he was born of Lady Altham 
in April-May, 1715. There were rejoicings when he was 
christened, but in February, 1716, Lord and Lady Altham 
quarrelled and parted. She was not allowed to take her 
child with her. He went with Lord Altham to various places, 
and was treated as a legitimate son. (This is the claimant's 
version.) In 1722 a mistress of Lord Altham, Miss Gregory, 
in Dublin set his lordship against the child, who was dismissed 
from his father's house, and "roved about," an object of 
charity and curiosity, till Lord Altham died on 16th November, 
1727. Lady Altham, more or less paralysed, died in 
poverty in England in 1729. Richard Annesley, brother of 
Lord Altham, now succeeded to the Altham title and estates, 
kidnapped the claimant, and sent him as an indentured " slave " 
to America. Here, in 1739-1740, he was brought, with his 



lO 



Introduction. 

claims, to the notice of Admiral Vernon, through whose aid, 
in autumn, 1741, he arrived in London. The news that the 
claimant — in Ireland believed to be dead — was alive and was 
about to return to England reached the Earl of Anglesea thus — 
The Daily Post of 12th February, 1741, contained the follow- 
ing passage : — 

Plantation News. 

(Extracts from our correspondent in Jamaica.) 

A sailor about 2 months ago entered himself on board the " Fal- 
mouth," who was soon chaleng'd by one of his mates for the only son 

of the late Lord , who was heir to the title & estate of the Earl 

of . Upon this he made a discovery of himself, declaring how he 

was sent out of Ireland by a certain nobleman, under whose care he 
was entrusted, & at eight years old just upon the death of his father 
sold as a slave into Pensylvania for seven years, before the expiration 
whereof he attempted to make his escape, but was retaken, & by a law 
of the country obligd for his elopement to serve seven years more; & 
that a little before the end of this second slavery, he again ran away 
& got down to the next sea-port when he enter'd himself with the 
Master of a Merchantship coming to this island. A Gentleman on 
board the vessel has made an affidavit that he knows him to be related 
to the Family & that he remembers that advertisements were published 
when the boy was missing & believes this to be him. Another who 
was his Schoolfellow, & at whose Father's house he lodged, makes affi- 
davit to the same purpose. The Admiral has order'd he should walk 
the quarterdeck as a midshipman till the truth can be manifested. 

The same intelligence had reached the ears of a noble and 
benevolent Scot, Mr. Mackercher. Without the backing of 
Mr. Mackercher and the help (according to Smollett) of an 

acquaintance of his, H n, — at one time the agent of the 

defendant. Lord Angle-ea — it is probable that the claimant 
could not have collected witnesses and brought his case into 
Court. 

V. 

Mr. Mackercher. 

We must therefore condense Smollett's account of Mr. Mac- 
kercher, as he appeared with the claimant in the Fleet prison 
for debtors, apparently in 1750. As early as 1746 Smollett, 
in a note to his satire, The Reproof, describes Mr. Mackercher 
as having ruined himself financially in befriending the claimant. 

II 



The Annesley Case. 

Mr. Mackercher " is this day one of the most flagrant 
instances of neglected virtue which the world can produce," 
writes Tobias. Mackercher was, says Smollett, " a manse 
bairn,'' the son of a minister of the Established Kirk of Scot- 
land, and his mother was nearly related to a noble family. 
His father died while tlie hero was a schoolboy, but an uncle 
paid for his education. In 1715, when James VIII. and III., 
vulgarly styled " the Pretender," was contending for the crown 
of his ancestors in Scotland, young Mac — tired by his studies 
of Julius Caesar, Curtius, and George Buchanan — ran away 
from school and tried to enlist in the little army of the Duke 
of Argyll, then holding Stirling, and the line of Forth against 
the Jacobites under the incompetent Earl of Mar. Young 
Mackercher fought for George I. at the battle of Sheriffmuir, 
where he helped to rescue a pair of regimental colours from 
their Highland captors (13th November, 1715). He later 
entered the Scots Greys, and he fought in 1719 at Glenshiel — 
still against the Jacobites under James Keith, later the famous 
field-marshal of Frederick the Great. He next resumed his 
education, but failed to take Presbyterian orders because of 
" the unreasonable austerity of some of the Scotch clergy." Mr. 
Mackercher was '' perhaps a little gay." He next, for two 
years, studied Roman law at Leyden ; acquired a friend who 
made him easy as to finance for the time, travelled in Southern 
France, found a patron in an English nobleman, who proved 
disappointing and ungrateful; was reduced to writing for the 
booksellers ; was the recipient of the bounty of his mistress, 
who reminds us of Lady Bellaston in Tom Jones ; and at 
last, in some way which is not clearly explained, became 
connected with the Virginia tobacco trade, and was a wealthy 
man, bubbling over with benevolence. He was acquainted, 
Smollett says, with Lord Anglesea's some time agent, Mr. 

H n, a very dubious character. To this Mr. H n, who 

•was on bad terms with his former employer, Lord Anglesea, 
the claimant betook himself when he returned from America 

to England in September or October, 1741. H n sheltered 

the claimant at first, and then, knowing that Mr. Mackercher 
was ever eager to aid all victims of persecution, handed him 
over to Mackercher, 



Introduction. 

Now, according to Mary Heath (the maid of Lady Altham 
from 1713 to her lady's death in 1729), Mr. Mackercher told 
her, on 13th April, 1742, that the claimant was recommended 
to him by two lieutenants in the Navy, Mr. Simpson and 
another — clearly of Vernon's fleet — that he gave the claimant 
ten guineas, and took him into his house. ^ This evidence 
is eight years earlier than that of Smollett, but Smollett also 
speaks of Lieutenant Simpson as the discoverer of the claimant 

in America, while another naval officer, a Mr. B , actually 

picked the claimant out of a crowd of sailors as his old school- 
fellow in Ireland, and there and then recognised him as Lord 
Altham's heir. 

VI. 
The Staines Homicide. 

Mackercher took the claimant from Higginson's into his own 
house, " rendered him fit to appear as a gentleman," and sent 
some one to Ireland to make inquiries as to his claims. These 
inquiries, Tobias proceeds to say, Lord Anglesea did his best 
to baffle by all the lowest dodges of the law. Mr. Mackercher 
even feared that the claimant's life was threatened, and sent 
him down to Staines to be out of the way of danger. 

This was unlucky for Thomas Egglestone, whom on 1st 
May, 1742, the claimant was so unfortunate as to shoot by the 
accidental discharge of his gun. On 4th May a coroner's jury, 
on the evidence of a boy, a son of the dead man, found the 
claimant guilty of murder. On loth July the claimant, with a 
keeper who was in his company on the fatal occasion, was 
tried for murder, being indicted as " James Annesley, labourer." 
In Court he said, " I claim to be Earl of Anglesea and a peer 
of this realm." In the cross-examination of the lad, John 
Egglestone, who was with his father at the time of his shooting, 
it came out that a day or two after the shooting the boy 
made the acquaintance of one Giffard. Now, this Giflfard was 
undeniably a solicitor hot'ore the Court of Common Pleas, and 
was employed by the defendant, the Earl of Anglesea, to get up 
a case of wilful murder against the claimant, while Lord 

1 See page 208. 

13 



The Annesley Case. 

Anglesea was also maintaining the boy Egglestone at the White 
Horse Inn in Piccadilly. It was made certain by the surgical 
evidence that young Egglestone perjured himself when he swore 
that the claimant shouted to his father, who was poaching a 
river with a net, " Damn your blood," and then levelled his 
gun and shot the man. The gun certainly was discharged by 
accident in the manner described by the claimant, speaking 
in his own defence. The coroner, Mr. King, proved that Lord 
Anglesea's agent, Giffard, applied to him to commit Annesley 
to Newgate, which he refused to do. There was also evidence 
that one Keating, from Ireland, had been trying to bribe 
Eo'glestoue to perjure himself ; but there was equally valuable 
and equally Irish evidence to prove that Keating made this 
attempt for the purpose of discrediting Lord Anglesea, in 
whom he found an illiberal patron. This Paul Keating had 
just come over from Ireland to make what profit he could 
out of the case between the claimant and Lord Anglesea. We 
shall later find him accused of trying to bribe a witness to 
swear falsely on the side of the claimant, and we do not know 
whether he was earnest in that endeavour or was attempting 
to prejudice the claimant's case and to stain the honour of his 
champion, the heroic and benevolent Mr. Mackercher. 

The jury found the claimant not guilty of murder, but of 
" chance medley. "^ The shooting was certainly accidental, but 
the shooter was so foolish and cowardly as to run away when he 
saw what he had done, and to conceal himself in the loft of 
a wash-house, whence he was dragged ignominiously. Had he 
gone to a magistrate and confessed the accident he would have 
escaped from the charge of murder. Again, there is very little 
doubt that he tried to bribe the son of the dead man to tell 
the truth about the accident. ^ By this time the claimant was 
married to the daughter-in-law of a Mr. Chester, who gave 
evidence in the case.^ 

There is no doubt that Lord Anglesea did his utmost, through 
Giffard and others, to get the claimant hanged, and there is 



1 Trial of Annesley and Redding for the murder of Thomas Egglestone. 
State Trials, vol. xvii. col. 1094-1140. 

2 Fisher's evidence. State. Trials, xvii. 1109. 
^Chester's evidence. State Trials, xvii. 1119. 

14 



Introduction. 

as little doubt that fifteen years earlier he had caused the 
claimant to be transported to America. Had Lord Anglesea 
been a normal man mentally, however great a villain, he would 
not have acted thus unless he knew that the claimant was 
Lord Altham's legitimate son. If he knew him to be a bastard 
he could easily have proved the fact, far more easily in 1727 
than later in 1743. But he acted as we have seen — first he 
kidnapped and exiled the claimant, and then tried to have him 
hanged for a crime of which he was innocent. These circum- 
stances were reckoned strong presumptions that the earl laiew 
the claimant's pretensions to be valid. But the earl was so 
abnormally foolish as well as vicious that he might commit 
any criminal absurdity, and may have acted as he did, even 
though he well knew, and in 1728 (the date of the kidnapping) 
could easily have proved, that the claimant was illegitimate. 
He was the kind of man who would think, " To get proof is 
laborious; let me send the boy to America." In 1742 he could 
think, "The man is a nuisance; let us have him hanged if we 
can." Thus this patrician's conduct affords no presumption 
that he knew the claimant to be legitimate, as the judges 
themselves supposed that it did, in the trial of 1743. 

In any case Lord Anglesea's agent, Giffard, turned against 
him, we shall see, in the trial of 1743, and in other cases 
witnesses changed sides with bewildering versatility, if we 
may believe Smollett in a point where he can scarcely be 
fabling. 

Mr. Mackercher now " openly espoused the cause," says 
Smollett, of the claimant, and with two other " gentlemen " 
and the claimant visited Ireland and collected evidence, true 
or false. Finally the trial was held, as already stated, from 
11th to 25th November, 1743, and a verdict, in which the 
judge.s obviously concurred, was given for the claimant, while 
to the defendant was allowed a writ of error. 

This trial of 1743 occupies columns 1140-1454 in State Trials, 
vol. xvii. It is followed in vol. xviii. by columns 1-196, con- 
taining the trial for perjury (17-15) of Mary Heath, the maid of 
Lady Altliam. Mary in 1743 swore that Lady Altham had 
no child and no miscarriage between the years 1713 and her 
death in 1739. Mary Heath in 1745 was acquitted of perjury, 
and the evidence of this trial of hers must be compared with 

15 



The Annesley Case. 

that given in the trial of 1743. If Mary were not perjured in 
1743, then the verdict for the claimant in that year was 
erroneous. Smollett omits mention of Mary's trial and 
acquittal I 

Already, on 3rd August, 1744, at Athy, in Kildare, Lord 
Anglesea and others had been convicted of an assault on the 
claimant, and on Daniel Mackercher, Esq., and Hugh Kennedy, 
Esq., and William Goostry, gent., at the Curragh Races on 
16th September, 1743. 

VII. 
The Affair at the Curragh. 

Before discussing in detail the long trial of 1743 we must 
glance at the report of the trial (3rd August, at Athy in Kildare, 
1744) of Richard Earl of Anglesea for an assault on the 
claimant, Mr. Mackercher, Hugh Kennedy, and William 
Goostry, committed at the Curragh in September, 1743. The 
affair throws light on the characters of all concerned. The 
judges were Richard Mounteney, second Baron of Exchequer 
(who also sat in November, 1743, in the great trial), and the 
Attorney-General. Mr. Harward, the claimant's counsel, began 
by alleging that the assailants made a concerted effort " to 
pursue the prosecutor, Mr. Annesley, to death." However, the 
troubles on the Curragh began on 14th September, when Lord 
Anglesea, among a crowd of gentlemen, spoke insults against 
Mr. Mackercher, as " a rogue, scoundrel, and villain " in 
second-hand finery. Mr. Mackercher took no notice. Several 
times on the last day of the races he and his friends were driven 
at by Lord Anglesea's coachman in a coach and six. The 
coachman kept shouting at the claimant as " that shoeboy." 
Mr. Mackercher then sought out Lord Anglesea, and found him 
among many gentlemen at the winning post. Mr. Mackercher 
begged his lordship to speak with him aside. He answered, 
" This is no time or place ; you see I have no pistols before me " 
(whereas Mr. Mackercher and several of his company and 
servants had pistols in their holsters). Mr. Mackercher replied, 
" For what I have to say to your lordship every time and place 
is proper." He then asked if the coachman had insulted his 
friend by Lord Anglesea's orders or approbation. K not, would 
i6 



Introduction. 

Lord Anglesea, as the affront was public, publicly strip the 
coachman of his livery and turn him off the course? Lord 
Anglesea retorted, with an oath, that the friend, the claimant, 
was no gentleman, but a shoeboy, a blackguard, and a thief. 

A witness said that Mr. Mackercher spoke in a very low, 
Lord Anglesea in a very loud, voice. Some one cried, " What, 
will you turn off your servant for that scoundrel " ; and Lord 
Anglesea, taking courage, swore that he would not, and bellowed 
insults at Mr. Mackercher. 

The hero answered, " My lord, you lie, and you durst not 
single yourself out and tell me so." The earl's led captain, Mr. 
Jans, and others cried, " My lord, you shan't go fight such a 
scoundrel; here are abundance of people to go out with him." 
At this point Mr. Francis Annesley of Ballysax struck Mr. 
Mackercher with the butt of his whip ; Mr. Mackercher replied 
with the lash of his own, and Lord Anglesea, rising in his 
stirrups, addressed the crowd, fulminating against the claimant 
as a bastard of Juggy Landy and a shoeblack. Seeing the mob 
very hostile, and fearing for the claimant's safety, Mr. Mac- 
kercher advised Gk>ostry and Kennedy to retire, and went to 
look for the claimant. At this moment, by order of Lord 
Anglesea, some one struck Goostry, while Mr. Mackercher 
found the claimant and led him aside. Presently one of his 
servants and a gentleman or two, strangers, came up, saying, 
" For God's sake, get away ; there is a design to murder you 
all " — " to murder Mr. Annesley and you." The pair then 
cantered off, and saw that people were following them. The 
claimant had the better horse, and rode as hard as he could. 
When Mr. Mackercher rejoined the claimant he was lying 
speechless in a lane leading to Newbridge (where they lodged), 
with nine or ten people round him. Mr. Mackercher rode to 
Newbridge and procured a coach, in which he carried away his 
inanimate friend, who, in fact, had fallen from his horse. 

This was Mr. Mackercher's evidence as to his and Mr. 
Anncsley's share in the battle of the Curragh. He had more 
to state as to what occurred on the following day. Mr. Springer, 
in cross-examination, brought out tlie fact that the Mackercher 
party rode armed, and thought they liud good reason to do so. 
Mr. Springer tried to show that Mr. Mackercher had no right 
to demand satisfaction from Lord Anglesea. Mr. Mackercher 
17 



The Annesley Case. 



did not deny that he hoped to make Lord Anglesea go on the 
sod with him — a very natural desire. He did not strike Lord 
Anglesea ; he could not swear as to how he held his whip. He 
mentioned Sir Kildare Borrowes and Mr. Warner among those 
who pursued the claimant. Mr. Hugh Kennedy corroborated 
Mr. Mackercher up to the moment when Lord Anglesea stunned 
the witness with a blow from the handle of his whip. The 
mob then hustled the witness, and Lord Anglesea beat him till 
the people cried " Shame! " He then rode off, and found Mr. 
Mackercher with the still unconscious claimant. John Kirway 
heard Lord Anglesea tell some men to follow the claimant and 
tear him limb from limb. Mr. Archbold saw Jans and 
Anglesea beating Kennedy, and he remonstrated with Jans, 
who advised Anglesea to desist. Archbold then counselled 
Kennedy to leave the course, " for you'll be murdered if you 
stay here." Kennedy said that he would not desert his friends; 
the mob cried that the claimant had gone ; Lord Anglesea cried, 
" Follow the son of a , and knock his brains out." Arch- 
bold rode to Annesley, whom he found insensible in a ditch ; 
some gentlemen " were for striking him," but Archbold said 
that he believed the man was dead already, and supported him 
till a surgeon was brought. He named three gentlemen of the 
county as having pursued; he was of the county himself. 

Mr. William Hacket, hearing a cry that " the young earl 
was killed," rode in the right direction and passed Mackercher, 
whose horse was slow. Mackercher, as he said in his own 
examination, asked Mr. Hacket to " keep close to Mr. Annesley, 
or he will be mui'dered." Hacket rode on, and, when he found 
Annesley senseless, vainly attempted to bleed him. Archbold 
was not cross-examined on this part of his evidence. 

Goostry's evidence was that ho struck Francis Annesley, who 
had stricken Mackercher ; Francis Annesley stunned him with a 
blow, and others beat him. 

We need not follow the evidence of Angus Byrne, a servant 
whose wages Lord Anglesea would not pay, for Angus was 
prejudiced, and he had, confessedly, been drinking all day. 
He declared that early next morning he was given a gun by 
Lacy, one of his lordship's men, and told to use it as Lacy 
might order. It is true that next day, when a summons for 
assault was served for Lord Anglesea on Mackercher 's party, 
i8 



Introduction. 

this man Byrne did level a gun charged with large swan-shot 
at the claimant. 

There was an instructive witness, Neile O'Neile, who swore 
that Mr. Mackercher struck Lord Anglesea first. This witness, 
when Mackercher first went to make inquiries in Ireland, came 
with all the evidence he could hope for, but proved to be such 
a rogue that he was discarded, and now came to swear against 
Mackercher. He was indicted for perjury. He was a surgeon. 
Not a few witnesses were of this character, and, when Macker- 
cher produced such persons in the great trial, they materially 
injured his case. Englishmen and Scots, strangers seeking 
information in Erin, are apt not to understand the humours of 
her children. This fact may account for an affidavit made by 
Mr. Mackercher in a later case, when the judge spoke severely 
of the Scot, but presently added that Mr. Mackercher " might 
have been misinformed." 

One is interested in Mr. Mackercher. He was not a bully 
and a coward, as he showed in his little dialogue with that 
cowardly bully, Lord Anglesea, on the Curragh. Perhaps 
Smollett did not wholly misread the character of his friend 
and fellow-countryman, " the melting Scot." He had the 
famous perfervidum ingenium ; one is not certain by any means 
that Mr. Mackercher was merely a speculator in the claimant's 
chances. But his foot in an Irish affair was off his native 
heath, and set on the green sod of the isle of mystery and 
glamour. 

This son of Farquhar is perhaps the most interesting person 
in the whole affair, and we perceive with some gratitude that 
he certainly gave Lord Anglesea the lie, and that Lord Anglesea 
dared not take up the gauntlet. 

Lord Angle.sea's led captain, Cavanagh, the dancing master, 
is the witness who said that, in the scene on the Curragh, " Mr. 
Mackercher spoke very low, but Lord Anglesea spoke very 
loud." The same witness said that Mr. Mackercher, when 
Lord Anglesea refused, with oaths and abuse, to give satisfac- 
tion, held up his whip in a threatening manner. Perhaps he 
did. This compromising retainer said that Lord Anglesea told 
Mr. Mackercher " he would go with him " (go out with him), 
" hut I do not think he would have gone." " I did not believe 
my lord would go out to fight;" this Mr. Cavanagh said twice. 
How can we explain his candid contempt of his noble patron? 

19 



The Annesley Case. 

Daniel Tynan was at once turned oflF the hible by Lord 
Anglesea'a own counsel when he suddenly expressed a desire to 
tell all that he knew about Paul Keating. We have met Mr. 
Paul Keating in a dubious part, in the trial about the shooting 
case at Staines; and he appears not less ambiguously in the 
case of the trial of Miry Heath for perjury. Apparently the 
defendant had no desire to inform the world about Mr. Keatincr. 

The jury found Lord Anglesea and Mr. Jans guilty of the 
assault on Mr. Mackercher. As to the claimant, his counsel 
argued that his dangerous fall resulted from his attempt to 
turn his horse in a narrow lane, that he might face his pursuers 
like a man. Smollett gives the same account in Peregrine 
Pickle. Now, Lord Anglesea stirred up the pursuit — is 
he not guilty of assault on the claimant? As no pursuer 
struck the claimant, the Court, while severely censuring Lord 
Anglesea, could not say that he was actually guilty of assault 
on the claimant. Finally, the Court severely reprimanded 
Lord Anglesea. "A number of people, by your lordship's 
example, might be led to take part on one side or the other; 
and, if they had done so, it is to be feared that there might 
have been more fatal consequences." His lordship was fined 
£30; Francis Annesley, £20; Jans, £10; and, for hitting 
Goostry, Lord Anglesea was fined 6d. 



VIIL 
The Two Views of the Case. 

When the contending parties had mustered their witnesses 
and engaged their counsel the two aspects of the case stood 
out thus — The claimant alleged that Lord Altham and his wife, 
after a long separation, were reconciled about November, 1713, 
and for some time lived together in the house of Captain Briscoe 
in Dublin. Thence they moved to the lodgings of a Mrs. Vice 
in Dublin, and on Christmas Eve, 1713, went together to 
Lord Altham's place, Dunmaine House, within 4 miles of New 
Ross, in County Wexford. There, in early spring, 1714, Lady 
Altham had a miscarriage. In the summer of 1714, say, early 
June, she had another mishap at Mrs. Vice's lodgings. She 
presently again became pregnant, and in November, 1714, 



Introduction. 

•wan some three months advanced in that way : so continued 
till January, 1715, and in April, 1715, gave birth to the 
claimant, who, after a month, was nursed by an ex-kitchenmaid, 
Joan Landy, in a cabin distant half a mile from Dunmaine 
House. The child was often at the house, and often visited 
by Lady Altham at Joan Landy's cabin. A dry nurse, Joan 
Laffan, was found for him in autumn, 1715 j he was brought 
permanently to Dunmaine House, remained there after Lady 
Altham left it for ever in February, 1716, and accompanied 
Lord Altham to various places, till he was dropped by his 
father, became a street boy, and (April, 1728) was transported 
to America by his uncle, the defendant. 

For the defendant it was argued that Lady Altham, in 
171-3-1716, never showed the slightest signs of approaching 
maternity, never had a miscarriage, never bore a child; and 
that from 1713 to February, 1716, no child was living in Dun- 
maine House. In 1714 a kitchenmaid, Joan Landy, had a 
bastard, attributed by some thinkers to Lord Altham; and 
some time after his lordship's separation from his wife in 
February, 1716, this child was brought to live in Dunmaine 
House. This bastard child was the claimant. He was taken 
up by Lord Altham in 1716, was fairly well treated till 1724, 
became odious by reason of his larcenies, was thrown upon 
the town of Dublin, and in 1728 shipped himself to America, 
whence he had now returned, a brazen and impenitent impostor. 

IX. 

The Great Trial. 

Two months after the battle of the Curragh the first of the 
test matches began between the claimant and his uncle before 
three Barons of the Exchequer in the King's Courts, Dublin. 
Formally the suit was a trial in ejectment between Campbell 
Craig (one of Mr. Mackercher's Scots), as a tenant of James 
Annesley, the claimant, in certain lands in Meath, and the 
Earl of Anglesea, who had duly caused the claimant's tenant 
to be ejected. Of course, if the claimant, the lessor, could 
prove himself to be the only son and heir of the late Arthur 
Lord Altham, then the Earl of Anglesea was not the owner of 



The Annesley Case. 

the lands whence he had ejected Craig, or of any other part 
of the English or Irish heritage of the late Arthur Lord Altham, 
and he lost the title of earl. 

Doubtless the hall in which the trial was held contained 
plenty of Irish peers, with their beautiful wives and daughters, 
and perhaps the claimant, as Charles Reade avers, wore 
" a rich suit of purple velvet and a gold sword hilt." That 
was Mackercher's affair; perhaps the spectators would have 
been more moved if the claimant had appeared in the simple 
costume of a distressed mariner. But, as he is said to have 
been a good-looking lad with fair hair (certainly not inherited 
from the equally dark Lord and Lady Altham), no doubt he 
was BO attired as to look the noble. Probably, as at the 
Curragh, the gentry and their women were at first of Lord 
Anglesea's party ; he was noble, while the claimant, on the 
spindle side, might be the son of the festive but low-born 
Juggy Landy, a kitchenmaid, folle de son corps. But 
society sided entirely with the claimant at the close of the 
trial. If Juggy or Joan Landy was present, and if the claimant 
were her son, her heart was doubtless with him, but her tongue 
was mute; she was on the list of the claimant's witnesses, bitt 
neither party dared to " put her on the table " — one of the 
most curious features of the case. 

If Joan Landy were the actual mother of the claimant, 
maternal affection and hope of his gratitude urged her to swear 
that he was not. So should she see her boy a belted earl. 
But if she were ri.ot the mother, she had manifestly been " got 
at " by the Anglesea faction, so that the claimant's counsel 
dared not call her as a witness ; while defendant's counsel were 
afraid that if they called her she would break down under 
cross-examination ! 

To this remarkable set of circumstances the three judges 
before whom the case was pleaded made no reference when 
addressing the jury. 

The defendant had secured Mr. Prime Serjeant Malone, the 
leader of the bar, a very clever man with a rich vein of banter, 
but capable of amazing blunders. With him were the Solicitor- 
General and fifteen of the bar, while for the plaintiff Serjeant 
Marshall, also an able man, less loquacious but more accurate 
than Serjeant Malone, headed a tail of thirteen counsel. Ser- 



Introduction. 

jeant Marshall led off with the claimant's view of the whole 
case, and Lord Chief Baron Bowes advised the jury to take 
notes; his lordship took no notes, yet his memory was but 
once, if once, at fault, and if it was, his assessors. Baron 
Mounteney and Baron Dawson, corrected him. 

X. 

The Claimant's Witnesses. 

Then the witnesses began to appear; first some were called 
to prove that Lady Altham might be a mother, because in 1714 
she had a miscarriage at Dunmaine. The most important 
witness here, Mrs. Cole, nee Briscoe, said that, " about 
Christmas," 1713, the Althams were reconciled, and stayed at 
her father's house in Dublin, that she saw them in bed, that 
they went to lodge with a Mrs. Vice, and thence to Dunmaine 
about Christmas, and that she and her mother visited Dunmaine 
''about the spring," 1714. Lady Altham was later alarmed 
by Lord Altham throwing some saucers adorned with facetiously 
improper designs into the chimney '" just by my lady who was 
seated at the upper end of the table." In the night Mary 
Heath awoke Mrs. Briscoe with the news that Lady Altham 
was very ill, and next day the witness saw the results of a 
miscarriage in a closet adjoining Lady Altham's bedroom. 
Three or four neighbours were present at the dinner of the 
broken saucers; she could not remember their names, very 
naturally. Later, in 1745, at the trial of Mary Heath for 
perjury, Lord Chief Justice Marlay made much of this lapse 
of memory, and of Mrs. Cole's different views as to where she 
8at at table. In 1743 she sat at Lady Altham's left hand. 
Lady Altham facing her lord. In 1745 she was not sure that 
Lord Altham sat next her on the other side (which could not be), 
and that she herself sat at Lady Altham's right side. There is 
nothing in such minute discrepancies in her mental pictures 
of a remote event. She gave, in 1745, her reasons for believing 
that Khe, not her mother, sat at Lady Altham's right. Her 
mother's eyes were weak, and if she sat at the right she had 
the light in her eyes. Lord Altham emptied the saucers before 
he threw them. Lord Chief Justice Marlay represented her as 

23 



The Annesley Case. 

Raying, " he emptied them careftiUy." His object was to prove 
that in Lord Altham's calm, deliberate action, as he threw each 
saucer between the heads of the two ladies, each of whom kept 
twisting her head away in a separate direction, there was 
nothing to alarm and excite Lady Altham. Further, said 
his lordship, in 1745, "Mrs. Cole admits to having said, on 
the former trial, that her mother told her it was an abortion; 
but now she says that her mother and she went into the closet 
together." Where is the discrepancy? 

Under cross-examination, in 1743, Mrs. Cole said that she 
was uncertain of her age, a fly-leaf in the family Bible being 
lost ; she thought she was about forty-five. Her error as to her 
age is examined later. She denied that she had been promised 
a lease as a reward for her evidence. She was asked what 
was the butler's name at Dunmaine in the spring of 1714; she 
said he was called Rolph ; and it will be remarked that all but 
one of the servants called for the claimant had no memory, or 
vague memory, of Rolph, who was a thorn in the side of the 
wandering heir. (The servant who did remember him did not 
belong to the Dunmaine family.) 

Alice Bates, formerly a servant of a Mrs. Vice, to whose 
lodgings, said Mrs. Cole, the Althams went from her father's 
house, and thence to Dunmaine, at Christmas, 1713, swore that, 
in November, 1714, the Althams were at Mrs. Vice's, that 
Lady Altham was then with child, and that Lord Altham said 
to her, the witness, "By God, Ally, Moll's with child," a 
speech much in his lordship's taste and style, " Moll " being his 
wife. This evidence for November, 1714, was firmly corro- 
borated in the later trial (1745) by the highest possible 
authority, that of two witnesses of repute, not examined in 
1743. On the theory of the claimant, he was the child of whom 
Lady Altham was pregnant in November, 1714. 

Next Catherine M'Cormick, of old a servant of Mrs. Vice, 
corroborated Mrs. Cole on the point that the Althams, just 
before Christmas, 1713, lodged with Mrs. Vice, and thence 
went to Dunmaine. This point of the lodging with Mrs. Vice 
during part of December, 1713, was only important because 
Mary Heath, Lady Altham's maid from 1713 to 1729, denied it, 
as did, in 1745, another important witness not heard in 1743. 

24 



Introduction. 

Catherine M'Cormick also swore that the Althams lodged 
again at Mrs. Vice's in the end of May or beginning of June, 
1714; that Lady Altham later, after a brawl of his lordship's 
making, miscarried (the second miscarriage), but was once 
more with child some time in the autumn of 1714, again at 
Mrs. Vice's. 

So far we have Lady Altham's miscarriage 1 about April, 
1714, at Dunmaine; miscarriage 2, at Mrs. Vice's about July, 
1714; appearance of Lady Altham's being with child at Mrs. 
Vice's, November, 1714. 

Here, by way of anticipation, it must be said that Lady 
Altham's English maid, Mary Heath, both at the trial of 1743 
and in her own trial for perjury in 1745, contradicted Mrs. 
Cole, Alice Bates, and Catherine M'Cormick on all essential 
points. She declared (and being Lady Altham's maid she 
ought to know) that the lady could not have " a big belly " 
unknown to her ; " I never had reason to believe that she was 
with child all the time I lived with her" (1713-1729). 

Now, there was produced at Mary Heath's trial for perjury 
in 1745 the highest contemporary scientific evidence that Lady 
Altham, about the end of November and in December, 1714, 
had a " big belly," a very big one, and that, in the opinion 
of Samuel Jemmat, M.D., an English gentleman, President of 
the Irish College of Physicians, she then " was with child," 
a belief to which, in 1745, he was still wedded. He gave hie 
medical reasons, but, on being asked, honestly said that 
positive certainty was impossible. He was corroborated by 
Hellena Moncriefife, a midwife (not called in 1743). She was 
in 1745 the mother of twenty-one children; " by my judgment 
Lady Altham was as much with child as ever I was," she eaid.^ 

Now, all this seems to be highly important evidence. Dr. 
Jemmat was, us the tone of his deposition proves, an English 
gentleman and a man of science. As far as his memory 
served him, it was late in November, 1714, when Lord Altham 
called him in to see Lady Altham at Mrs. Vice's house. He 
intended to adopt a given treatment when certain symptoms 
induced him to ask Lady Altham " if she was with child? " 
She replied that " she had all the reason in the world to 



1 Statt Trials, xviii. 66 74. 

25 



The Annesley Case. 



believe that she had been so for three months at least." That 
takes us back to the beginning of September, and, according 
to the vague memories of the many witnesses who declared 
that she bore a child in 1716, the month of the event was April 
or early May. All that is in the customary nature of things. 
Dr. Jemmat, one of the very few adequate and authentic wit- 
nesses, was corroborated by Mrs. Moncrieffe, the mother of 
twenty-ono children, whose evidence was quite clear, and, eo 
to say, scieutitic, and transparently honest. 

With two such witnesses we cannot doubt that the evidence 
of Mary Heath as to Lady Altham's having never shown any 
hope of maternity, was false. She cannot have but known 
that, late in 1714, Lady Altham's condition gave her ladyship 
good hope of maternity, whether the hope was fallacious or 
not. Yet Mary Heath, in 1746, was acquitted — a miscarriage 
of justice — of perjuiing herself. In 1743 Mary remembered 
the breaking of the saucers at Dunmaine in 1714, but denied 
that Lady Altham had, in consequence, any illness. She also 
denied that, in December, 1713, the Althams left Captain 
Briscoe's house for Mrs. Vice's lodgings, as Mrs. Uole said, 
but since, at a rather later date, they did occupy these lodg- 
ings twice or thrice, Mrs. Cole's memory may well have been 
confused. In the trial of 1743 Mrs. Cole and Mary Heath 
were confronted; each stood by her story, Mrs. Cole calmly, 
Mary Heath with excitement. ^ But that is a mere question 
of manners, educated or uneducated. 

Ag regards Mrs. Cole a very singular fact came out at the 
trial of Mary Heath in 1745. At the trial of 1743 Mrs. Cole 
had stated her own age in that year as about forty-five, and 
her age in 1714 as about thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen. She 
did not pretend to be certain within two or three years. It 
was argued against her that so young a girl would not be 
shown or understand about the results of a fausse couche, and 
for her that girls of thirteen are specially curious in such 
matters. In the earlier trial Alice Bates, who had been a 
servant of Mrs. Vice's in 1713-1714, was asked how old Mra 
Cole had been in that year, and if she were then marriageable 1 
Alice replied, " she was marriageable and as big as she ia 



' See page 253. 
26 



Introduction. 

now," so she can hardly have been a child of thirteen, though 
such cases do occur. No certificate of birth was asked for in 
1743, a singular oversight. In 1745 Mrs. Cole had provided 
herself with an extract from the registry of the Church of St. 
Nicholas Within, which proved that in 1714 she was aged 
twenty-two. 

To what extent this invalidates her truthfulness as to matters 
of fact, or how far, on the other hand, it explains her being 
allowed to see what she did see, must be matter of opinion. 
In 1743, Lord Anglesea's counsel, Serjeant Malone, argued 
that Mary Heath's evidence, as she was twenty-five in 1714, 
was better than that of Mrs. Cole, who was so very young. 
But that contention, at least, was nullified when Mrs. Cole was 
proved to be only three years younger than Mary Heath. i 

Mrs. Cole also, in 1745, said that she sat next Lord Altham 
when he threw the saucers about at Dunmaine. In 1743 she 
said that she sat next Lady Altham. As the saucers were 
certainly thrown in her presence, as Mary Heath admitted, 
such variations of memoiy, after so great a lapse of time, are 
unimportant. As to the miscarriage, either Mrs. Cole or 
Mary Heath was perjured. Had Mrs. Cole been a child in 
1714, in the course of some thirty years her memory might 
have become hallucinated. But this is hardly possil)k', as in 
1714 she was aged twenty-two. In 1745 Mrs. Cole was asked 
whether or not she had told a Mr. Whyte that she could be u 
very material witness for Lord Auglesea if her lease were 
renewed, but that if it were not she would not tell him what 
she knew. She replied that she had said to Mr. Whyte, " if 
the proving of a miscarriage can prove of any service to my 
Lord, I can prove the miscarriage."- Mr. Whyte told her 
that the miscarriage was immaterial, " We do not go upon 
that, for we do uot suppose my lady a barren woman." Mr. 
Whyte was not called on for his testimony. 

In fact the miscarriage was imiaateiial ; and Mrs. Colo had 
spoken of it to Mr. Whyte before the [)uint wliich was really 
material had arisen, niiniely, the statement of Mary llouth Uiat 
Lady Altham never had a miscarriage, nor even showed any 
Hymptoms of approaching maternity. But Dr. Jemmat 

1 See page 259. 

2 StaU TriaU, xviii. 63 65. 

a7 



The Annesley Case. 



proved in 1745 that on this point Mary Heath was not veracious, 
that Lady Altham did expect a child, and we cannot hesitate 
between Mary's evidence and that of the President of the 
College of Physicians. 

In summing up to the jury, in the trial of Mary Heath, 
Mr. Justice Blennerhasset dwelt on the discrepancies in Mrs. 
Cole's evidence as to her age, where she sat at dinner during 
the affair of the saucers, and so on. He also said that neither 
Dr. Jemmat nor Mrs. Moncrieffe proved the actual pregnancy 
of Lady Altham in November-January, 1714-1715. But he 
did not call the attention of the jury to the fact that Mary 
Heath had denied the appearance of any signs of approaching 
motherhood in Lady Altham, while the President of the Royal 
College of Physicians and Mrs. Moncrieffe swore that the signs 
were so significant as (if Lady Altham were not really preg- 
nant) to deceive even the very elect. 

We thus reach, perhaps, a fixed point : Mary Heath was nt)t 
a veracious witness, and she was the most material witness 
against the claimant. 

XI. 

Major Fitzgerald. 

The next witness for the claimant gave affirmative evidence 
to his legitimate birth, which cannot be explained away by 
any hypothesis that fancy can suggest. We are here approach- 
ing the very centre of the labyrinth. The reader who would 
understand must give his best attention, and forgive any defects 
of lucidity in the presentation of testimony so tangled and 
derived from so many sources at so many different dates. 

Major Richard Fitzgerald of Prospect Hall, recently returned 
in November, 1743, from active service on the Rhine, swore 
that one day in 1715 he happened to be at Ross on private 
business. He was sure the month was September. He was 
long acquainted with Lord and Lady Altham, and. meeting 
Lord Altham at Ross, was invited to ride the four miles to 
Dunmaine and taste " the groaning drink," or caudle, as her 
ladyship was brought to bed. The major answered that he 
had a dinner engagement, and that her ladyship's condition 
was reason good why he should not then visit Dunmaine. " I 
28 



Introduction. 

desired my lord to let me know the next morning how my 
lady was, and what God sent, and I would go to dine with him. 
He did so, and that his lady was brought to bed of a son; and 
I went there about one o'clock, and rode to Dunmaine." After 
dinner his lordship swore that the major must see his child ; 
" and I kissed the child, and gave the nurse half a guinea 
some of the company drank him as heir apparent to 
the Lord Anglesea." Among the company he only remembered 
Captain Robert Phaire, a name well known under the Restora- 
tion. Asked, " Do you know who was the nurse that brought 
down the child for you to see?" he replied, "I know, sir, 
that the very woman I gave the half guinea to is here to-day, 
and I never saw her from that time to this." "How came 
you to know her again, theni " "I took particular notice of 
her, sir, because she was very handsome, if you will have the 
truth of it." 

Now here is what seems to be inexpugnable evidence of the 
birth of a child to Lord and Lady Altham in 1715. But there 
was a flaw. Major Fitzgerald knew that his visit to Dunmaine 
was at one of the two half-yearly terms when rents were paid. 
But whereas the claimant's counsel placed the term in April, 
1715, Major Fitzgerald was firm in the belief that harvest work 
was going on as he rode homewards. Consequently, counsel 
for the defendant accepted the major's date (September, 1715), 
which, of course, contradicted the April date of the claimant's 
other witnesses, and nullified his case. 

Then Prime Serjeant Malone, for the defendant, adopted an 
astonishing and impossible hypothesis to explain all that befell 
the major at Ross and at Dunmaine ; for nobody denied that hin 
tale was true, that the facts to which he testified actually 
occurred. The serjeant paid the most florid compliments to 
the civil and military character of the major, " brought from 
the army on the Rhine, whence he comes crowned with laurels," 
and here the serjeant makes no objection to the major's Sep- 
tember date of the visit to Dunmaine, but suggests that he 
was the victim of a practical joke by Lord Altham, who was 
glorying in his fatherhood of a bastard son. Now, no bastard 
child of Lord Altham is ever hinted at in the evidence except 
Joan Landy's babe of March or April, 1714. Yet, according 
to defendant's counsel, " Joan had just lain in " (to Lord 

29 



The Annesley Case. 



Altham) when (in September, 1715, as the serjeant insisted on 
the major's date) that gentleman was invited to see Lord Alt- 
ham's heir — really to see a bastard passed off as the heir, for 
a joke. 

Joan lay in a year before April, 1715, and more than a year 
before September, 1715. Her child could not be passed off as 
a babe of one day old I 

However, said Serjeant Malone, " Joan Landy had just lain 
in, Lord Altham palms the young by blow upon him for his 
heir, and my lord was ready to burst with the thoughts of 
having bit them all with the young kid." 

Thus the Major's evidence to the facts of his own experience 
at Dunmaine in 1715 is accepted by the defence. Their 
attempt to explain the facts away by the practical joke of ex- 
hibiting a child of twelve or eighteen months as a new born 
babe is ridiculous. We must suppose that the major's memory 
represented the April as the September half-yearly term, and 
this is certainly the explanation, for something extraordinary 
is to be added. After tracing the history of these trials, we 
shall produce sworn evidence of a nature not to be doubted, to 
prove that in mid- April, 1715, Lord Altham publicly announced 
the birth of his son by Lady Altham, and privately corroborated 
it in conversation with the High Sheriff of Kilkenny county. 
The evidence is that of an affidavit by the High Sheriff him- 
eelf, and, of course, it corroborates the facts and corrects the 
erroneous date in the testimony of Major Fitzgerald. 

Another point in support of Major Fitzgerald must be borne 
in mind. He recognised in Court, in 1743, the very hand- 
some nurse of Lord Altham' s child to whom he had given a 
half guinea in 1715. The chief counsel for the claimant, 
Serjeant Marshall, identified the handsome nurse with a witness 
for the claimant, Mary Doyle — " My lords, this woman has 
been in Court, and has certainly the remains of a fine counte- 
nance." 1 She said that the major stayed over night at Dun- 
maine, in which she was mistaken. But certainly the major 
noticed her beauty in T715, and recognised her in 1743. 

"Now, it was an essential part of the defendant' s case that 
in 1715 Mary Boyle was not in Dunmaine, his chief witness, 

1 The Trial at Bar, p. 353. 
30 



Introduction. 

Lady Altham's maid, Mary Heath, being asked, " Do you 
remember one Mary Doyle in the family?" "No; Betty 
Doyle I did."i 

XII. 
Other Witnesses. 

There were few witnesses like Major Fitzgerald for the claim- 
ant. Not all of them need be mentioned here, but John 
Turner seems a notable witness. He said, in his first examina- 
tion,- that he was seneschal to Lord Anglesea; was married on 
29th December, 1714; visited Dunmaine with his wife a month 
later; remained in Lent, 1715; and saw that Lady Altham was 
about to be a mother. A year and a half later (which is 
impossible, for Lord Altham by that date was separated from 
her lord) he saw Lady Altham at Dunmaine with her boy, aged 
about eighteen months; afterwards he saw the child at Ross 
when Lady Altham lodged there with Captain Butler (1716). 
He saw the boy at Kinnea (1718) with Lord Altham; the boy 
was dressed " as the son of a nobleman." In Dublin, in 1722, 
Lord Altham told the witness that " you were seneschal to Earl 
Arthur and Earl John, and you may be seneschal to the child." 
Turner saw the boy two or three years later, so altered and 
neglected that he could not recognise him. Later he asked 
the defendant where the boy was. The defendant answered, 
"Deadl " 

Turner was re-examined at the close of the trial. In State 
Trials (xvii. 1350) he now gives the date of his marriage as 
29th September, 1714. This is an error. He said, 
" December 29, 1714," as before.'^ Two important points in 
Turner's evidence are (1) he saw Lord Altham with a boy at 
Carrickduff, about 1720 or 1721, and Lord Altham said, " You 
were seneschal to Earl John and Earl Arthur, and I'm sure 
you will outlive me, and therefore may be seneschal to this 
boy here." Next (2), on re-examination he swore that, to 
the Wexford Assizes (18th-22nd April, 1715) Lord Altham went 
in a coach, and that he rode. Lord Altham had no ladies 

' See page 209. 
' See page 02. 
* See page 25 1 . 

3' 



The Annesley Case. 



with him. Witness saw Lady Altham at Dunmaine, after her 
loi-d left. On this crucial point of Lady Altham's presence at 
or absence from these Wexford Assizes the cross-swearing was 
furious. If she was there on 16th-li2nd April, 1715, she 
could not also be lying-in at home at the same date. 

Turner also swore that about 1717 or 1718 Lord Altham 
asked him to appeal to the Earl of Anglesea for money to help 
him to maintain his son. Turner did appeal to Earl Arthur, 
who was very angry, but finally gave £50. It was about 
1735-1740 that the defendant told Turner that the boy was 
dead. 

Prime Serjeant Malone, when addressing the jury, tried to 
prove that Turner was much out in dates, and read them 
from his notes. The notes must have been erroneous. The 
Serjeant also said that seneschals were apt to be avaricious 
and oppressive men, which had no connection with the matter. 
Turner, so long a retainer of the Angleseas, does not make the 
impression of a perjured witness. 

The evidence of Dennis Redmonds was that of a poor stable- 
man. His story was that about thirty years before 1742 he 
was in service at Dunmaine ; that Lady Altham's condition was 
the talk of the servants; that he himself was sent to bring 
a midwife, a Mrs. Shiels, from the town of Ross; that after 
three weeks the child was christened James by the Rev. Mr. 
Lloyd, Lord Altham's chaplain; that the godfathers were Mr. 
Cliffe and Mr. Colclough, and the godmother Mrs. Pigot; that 
the nurse was Joan Landy, " because she had the best milk " ; 
that she nursed the child in a cottage, where her father and 
mother lived, a quarter of a mile distant from Dunmaine 
House, and that Lady Altham had a " coach road " made 
through that quarter of a mile. The child was brought to the 
house in about a year, and remained there after Lady Altham 
left her husband, who had treated her in a manner almost 
incredibly infamous in the affair (to which we shall come) 
of Mr. Thomas Palliser. Under cross-examination he dated 
the birth "about May" (1715), he was not at the christening, 
believes the midwife is dead (as were the three godparents). 

His account of Joan Landy was that she had a child, whether 
by a sailor, or by Lord Altham, or by some other man, many 
months before Lady Altham bore the claimant. There were 
32 



Introduction. 

discrepancies as to the time, and the witness was confessedly 
"a poor and inferior person." 

There was much dispute about Joan Landy's cottage — by the 
defendant's witnesses described as containing but one room 
without furniture, and with no road to the place; by the 
claimant's witnesses as improved for the occasion, whitewashed, 
and provided with a new road. 

On the whole, it seems proved that there was a road by 
which Lady Altham might visit her child. Fosterage, outside 
of the house, was still not extinct in Ireland, the reason alleged 
being that the rich living at great houses was injurious to the 
wet nurse. 

Mary Doyle, of whom we have already heard, said that she 
was in service at Dunmaine three months before the child's 
birth ; was present at Lady Altham's delivery, as was Mrs. 
Butler ; and, as to the midwife, the " gossips," and the nurse, 
she corroborated Redmonds. She believed that Major Fitzgerald 
stayed for some time at Dunmaine; in fact, he did not pass a 
night there. Serjeant Malone had, we saw, practically 
admitted, nay, had insisted, that Mary Doyle was at Dunmaine 
when Fitzgerald called there, and that she was an actress in 
the great practical joke. Asked who was the butler at the time 
of the birth, Mary said, " Charles Meagher." Now, Thomas 
Kolph, called for the defence, swore that he was the butler 
from the end of 1713 to the autumn of 1715. (Mrs. Cole 
remembered him as butler in 1714.) He did not remember 
Mary Doyle among the servants (though she was), and Mary 
Doyle spoke of Meagher, not of Rolph, as the butler. We 
return to Rolph later. 

Eleanor Murphy, another maid, corroborated Mary Doyle 
on most points. But each woman said that the other was 
in service at Dunmaine House before herself, and Eleanor 
Murphy, by her evidence, was in two places at once; on the 
whole, intentionally or through confusion of mind, she appears 
to have perjured herself in places. 

The strength of Mary Doyle's evidence was not fully apparent 
at the trial. She swore that among those present at the delivery 
of Lady Altham was Mrs. Butler, wife of Captain Butler, a 
very great friend of her lady.sliip, and a near neighbour. In 
1746 this fact was substantiated by an affidavit of Mr. 
^ 33 



The Annesley Case. 



Malbrank-White, a nephew of Mrs. Butler. His evidence is 
later given in full. 

Serjeant Malone remarked on the dates in the evidence of 
Mary and Eleanor, that " liars ought to have good memories," 
but a much " heckled," uneducated woman may be confused in 
cross-examination as to a period of two or three months after 
an interval of nearly thirty years. The Lord Chief Baron, 
when addressing the jury, remarked that there were such 
discrepancies as to time and place in the evidence of both sides, 
and it was not in nature that there should not be. It is 
remarkable that no dated letters and only one diary were 
produced in the whole course of the trial. Without diaries and 
letters the best educated witnesses could not swear with 
accuracy to their movements in a given three months thirty 
years ago. 

The evidence of a Mrs. Deborah Armesley, whose husband 
(dead at the time) had been akin to Lord Altham, dated from 
1717 to 1718, when Altham, separated from his wife and 
accompanied by a mistress, was residing at Kinnea, in County 
Kildare. Mrs. Annesley naturally did not visit Lord Altham ; 
but she and her brother had often drunk to the health of Lord 
Altham's son James, whom they both believed to be legitimate. 
Her brother would not have toasted a bastard; he was a grave 
and sober man, Mrs. Annesley declared. There really was, in 
1715-1718, a belief that Lord Altham had a son and heir. 

If Lord Altham, in a humorous spirit, played a practical 
joke on Major Fitzgerald, he also played a similar joke on 
Mr. Barnes, an alderman of Kilkenny. He " knew my lord 
very well indeed," and all that he knew of the matter was what 
my lord told him in an inn at Ross in the April or May of 
1715. Mr. Barnes "had been in Dublin about affairs of the 
Duke of Ormond," who in a few weeks joined James VIII. and 
III. in France, to the advantage of neither king nor subject. 
Mr. Barnes and Lord Altham dined together, and Lord Altham 
had this remarkable expression, " Tom, I'll tell you good news, 
I have a son by Moll Sheffield." Mr. Barnes, thinking that 
Moll must be " a naughty pack," " shook his head and said, 
'Who is Moll Sheffield r" "Zounds, man, she is my wife," 
said Lord Altham. Mr. Barnes, remembering, was shocked 
by his own want of tact, and apologised, adding, " for the 
34 



Introduction. 

Lord's sake, stay at home with your wife and discharge all 
other women." The month was April or May. Mr. Barnes 
still reckoned himself, in 1742, as the loyal servant of the Duke 
of Ormond, then a Jacobite exile at Avignon, and, I regret to 
say, still flirting, which deeplj'^ grieved that other good and 
loyal Jacobite, the Rev. George Kelly — " Parson Kelly." Death 
alone prevented the Duke from joining Prince Charles in 1746. 
Now I believe in Barnes's story; it bears the stamp of truth. 
He could not have invented it, with his own innocent and 
natural forgetfulness as to who "Moll Sheffield" was. Mr. 
Barnes was an honest and courageous man. He proclaimed 
his loyalty to the Duke of Ormond " to this day " in open 
Court, and all the world knew that the loyalty of His Grace 
did not attach itself to the Elector of Hanover ! 

Certainly in April-May, 1715, Lord Altham was boasting 
that he had a son by " Moll Sheffield," Lady Altham, his wife. 
To another witness he said, " My wife has a son who will make 
my rake of a brother's nose swell," that is, will disappoint his 
brother Richard, later the defendant. The evidence is that 
of the Earl of Mount Alexander (Hugh Montgomery); he could 
not date the occasion save by the fact that oysters were in, 
as they be in months with an " r " in their names. The scene 
of the conversation was an oyster house in Dublin. ^ 

Certainly Lord Altham bragged freely about having a son 
by his wife, and Mr. Southwell Pigot was not allowed to give 
evidence that his mother had told him that (as many witnesses 
reported) she was godmother of the boy. Mr. Pigot could 
swear that there was an uncontradicted belief that Lady 
Altham had a boy born to Lord Altham. John Scott, a servant 
of Mr. Pigot, swore he was often sent by Mrs. Pigot with 
messages of inquiry as to Lady Altham's health after her child- 
bearing. 

Much affirmative evidence was given by Joan Lafifan, certainly 
an acute woman, who said that she had been a chambermaid at 
Dunmaine in 1715, saw the child treated as legitimate, and 
took care of him after the final separation of Lord and Lady 
Altham in 1716, and till Lord Altham went with the boy to 
Kinnea. Tier testimony was vitiated, said Serjeant Malone, 
by discrepancies in dates. 2 

* See page 127. 

"See page 268. 35 



The Annesley Case. 



If Joan lieil, she lied with circumstance. She remembered 
that sweet whey was made for the nurse's drink, " for my lady 
ordered that she should not eat greens, potatoes, or roots, for 
fear of injuring her milk." She remembered that the late Lord 
Doneraile, playing with the child, " took out a handful of 
gold, and bade the child take his choice of a piece " — after the 
separation of Lord and Lady Altham (February, 1716). Of 
a Mrs. Giffard, a strong witness for the defence, Joan spoke 
with hauteur. " She was not so grand a woman, and I took 
no great notice of her." Joan was very positive as to having 
been present when Lord Altham trapped Mr. Tom Palliser in 
Lady Altham's bedroom, and had part of his ear cut off 
(February, 1716). Joan was present, " babe in arm," and told 
a most circumstantial story about the notice which the child 
took of Mr. Palliser's blood. She saw Lady Altham kiss the 
child in her coach before she drove away to Ross. All that 
Joan said was flatly contradicted by other witnesses, i especially 
by Mr. Palliser and Mary Heath. 

Bartholomew Furlong, a dealer in corn and other produce, 
swore that he saw Lady Altham (whom he greatly admired) big 
with child, and attempted to obtain the place of wet nurse for 
his own wife, and that Lady Altham was willing, arranged 
terms, and gave him half a crown; but his own child was ill, 
and a Dr. Brown recommended that Mrs. Furlong should not 
be employed. This witness was not shaken in cross-examina- 
tion. He saw the child with Lady Altham, at Dunmaine, later. 

Out of due course was produced a belated witness, Thomas 

Higginson. Is he the H n mentioned by Smollett as the 

person who introduced the claimant to Mr. Mackercher? He 
swore that from 1711 to 1716 he was receiver of the then Earl 
of Anglesea's rents in Wexford. On the Thursday before 
Easter, 1715, he went to Clonimes, meaning to go to Wexford 
Assizes, and on Tuesday after Easter day went to Dunmaine 
and met, among other people, the wife of John Weeden or 
Weedon, Lord Altham's coachman. He heard that Lord 
Altham was not at home, but saw my lady ; she was about 
to be a mother, and gave him a glass of wine, in which he 
drank to her happy delivery. In Wexford, a day or two later, 



J See pages 106, 107, 249, 250. 
36 



Introduction. 

he met Lord Altham and paid him some rents from his tenants 
on the Nanny Water, in Meath, which his own son had col- 
lected, and which he received from his son on Wednesday in 
Easter Week at Enniscorthy. He went to Dunmaine merely 
to tell Lord Altham that his son had got the Nanny Wa.ter 
rents, and expected to be "a welcome messenger." Now, 
this witness -^eems valuable to the claimant; but in the trial 
of Mary Heath for perjury, in 1745, documents were produced, 
and the wife of John Weedon was produced, and Mr. Higgin- 
Bon's evidence was rendered of dubious quality. We examine 
the question under "The Trial of Mary Heath." 

The apparent slur on Higginson's evidence was that the 
dates at which he received rents were written down by him 
beforehand, and consequently did not indicate the date on 
which he was at the place of payment. He swore that Lord 
Anglesea was at New Ross in June or July, 1715, and that 
people told him Lord Altham had a son, and wished him like 
good fortune. 

The kind of evidence produced for the claimant, as far as 
concerned the birth of a child to Lady Altham in 1715, may 
now be understood. There was more, and worse. The 
defendant had years in which to get up his case before the 
claimant arrived on the scene, and it v.o.s hinted that 
defendant's agents had planted on the claimant's agents certain 
witnesses who were intended to discredit them by bearing 
false testimony. 

XIII. 
The Claimant after February, 1716. 

Lady Altham left her lord, never to return to him, on a 
Sunday in February, 1716. According to Joan Laffan, the 
claimant, then a small child of ten months, remained at 
Dunmaine under her charge. Meanwhile Lady Altham resided 
with Captain Butler, husband of her friend Mrs. Butler, near 
New Ross. Did she ever, while at New Ross, receive furtive 
visits from her child? After the trial, in 1746, Mrs. Butler's 
nephew, Mr. Malbrank-Wlutc, swore that she did. At the 
trial of 174.'} the best witness to visits from the child was 
Eklward Lutwich, in 1717 or 1718 a trooper in Napier's 

37 



The Annesley Case. 

Regiment, then quartered at New Ross. He was a shoemaker 
before he was a trooper, and, if he lied, lied with all the 
circumstance of De Foe in fiction. He said that Lady Altham, 
who wanted shoes and slippers of white damask, applied to 
him; that he said he must get "conveniences" through the 
carmen from Dublin; that she gave him the stuff; that before 
the tools came she sent for him and bade him make morocco 
shoes for a boy of three, who was with her, "the young lord," 
as Lutwich called him. When paying for the shoes she 
lamented that she could only see her child by stealth. Lut- 
wich described minutely how he took the measure of the 
child's foot. 

Under cross-examination his knowledge of the officers of his 
regiment was copious and minute, also of the topography of 
the house, that of one Wright, where Lady Altham then lived. 
In 1743 Lutwich, who had joined the Guards, had a pension 
and a small freehold in Surrey, and had voted at the last 
election. On hearing of the claimant in England, and that he 
was '' a pretender and a bastard," Lutwich had exclaimed, 
" Upon my soul, I believe that, if ever my mother had a son, 
my Lady Altham had one, and that he was the son of my 
Lady Altham." Lutwich was quite unshaken under cross- 
examination. Moreover, he was not Irish, not amenable to 
Irish prejudice on one side or the other. 

Lord Altham left Dunmaine in 1718 to try to raise money 
elsewhere. He never came back. Mr. Lambert let the place 
to another tenant, and Lord Altham went, with the boy, to 
live at Kinnea. 

At Kinnea Mr. Lawrence Misset remembered the boy as a 
junior at a school where he himself was educated. He did not 
pretend to remember dates. The boy was well dressed, with a 
silver-laced hat. (The evidence of Mrs. Annesley about the 
drinking the boy's health in her family belongs to the Kinnea 
period; she lived near that town.) 

Lord Altham and the boy later went to Carrickduff, in 
County Carlowe, his lordship being terribly impecunious, as, 
indeed, he was even in 1714. Here two Cavanaghs, Mr. Charles 
Byrne, and Dempsy, a schoolmaster, swore that every one 
treated the boy as legitimate, and that Lord Altham took him 
about paying visits. James Cavanagh swore that Lord Altham 
38 



Introduction. 

said that one day the boy would be Earl of Anglesea. Dempsy 
swore to recognising the boy in the claimant. Mr. Charles 
Byrne used to receive Lord Altham and the boy, and vowed 
that he would not knowingly receive a bastard. He would not 
have recognised the claimant, " no more than the King of 
Morocco." 

The next move was to Cross Lane, Dublin, and then to 
Frapper Lane, where Miss Gregory, his lordship's new mistress, 
has a spite against him, accusing him of dishonesty. He was 
sent to lodge out. Lady Altham herself was now in Dublin, 
and it was urged that she must have made efforts to see her 
child; but, really, she appears to have lost health and hope 
and energy. One witness had heard her say that if Lord 
Altham's servants brought the boy to her, they would lose 
their livelihood. Certainly she could not help them. The boy 
was very cruelly punished, was allowed to run wild, was a sort 
of errand boy to men at Trinity College, who were kind to him. 
Some thought him legitimate, some — a bastard. The child, 
it was sworn, asserted his legitimacy, but he could not know; 
if legitimate, he never saw his mother after 1718, if Lutwich 
truly said that he visited her then. He had been treated well, 
had a pony and a laced hat (according to the evidence for 
him), and a scarlet coat, and by 1724 he was a gangrel, turned 
out of the house where the wretched Altham herded with Miss 
Gregory and chairmen. There is no profit in asking if it is 
probable that Lord Altham would thus have used a legitimate 
son. He was quite besotted; he was under a mistress. Be 
the boy a bastard or not, he was infamously treated. One 
Fanell swore that he remonstrated with his lordship, who said 
that he was very poor, and was under the rule of Miss Gregory. 
Farrell induced a good-humoured butcher, John Puixell, to 
shelter the boy, partly (if we accept Purcell's own evidence) 
from kindliness of disposition, partly because, if the boy were 
legitimate, advantage might come of it. Purcell's evidence is 
bluff and characteristic. He said that the defendant, then 
Captain Annesley, came to his house, asked for beer, and 
addressed the boy as " Jemmy " ; the boy addressed the captain 
as " Uncle Richard." The boy went to Lord Altham's funeral 
(November, 1727) and "came home all in tears." Three 
weeks later the defendant came and asked that the boy might 

39 



The Annesley Case. 

be sent to the house of one Jones. Purcell -went thither with 
the boy, and with a sufficient cudgel. At Jones' he saw Uncle 
Richard (the defendant) in mourning, "with a constable and 
two or three other odd -looking fellows." The defendant told 

one of them to cnrry off " that son of a ," and used much 

florid eloquence of this kind. Purcell took the boy, who was 
trembling with fear, between his knees, said he would brain 
any man who touched him, and carried the child home. But 
in February, 1728, the boy left his house for that of a Mr. 
Tigh. Purcell recognised the claimant as soon as he saw him 
on his return. The objections taken to Purcell's evidence by 
the counsel of the defendant were conspicuously trivial, too 
trivial to need consideration. 

A barrister must do his best for his client, must suggest all 
kinds of objections to hostile evidence, though he himself cannot 
think the objections of any value. If Purcell believed, as he 
said he believed, that the boy was Lord Altham's " real natural 
son " (he meant legitimate son), counsel asked, why did he 
thrash the boy when the boy needed it? Why did he make 
no protest when the defendant succeeded to the estates and 
title? 

The truth is, obviously, that Purcell befriended the boy from 
kindness of heart, with an eye also to the main chance if the 
boy were legitimate, that he " did not care to interfere as long 
as might had overcome right " (his own words). Ht could 
prove nothing. Asked how he knew that an ill-favoured one 
who lurked about his door was a constable, Purcell said that 
he "looked like a constable." What better answer, in the 
days of Jonathan Wild, could a man give? If he thought that 
the defendant meant to do the boy harm, why did he not apply 
to a justice of the peace? " He did not care to go to law 
about it, but he took care to keep the boy within doors." 

At Jones' the boy had implored him not to let " Uncle Dick " 
get hold of him, upon which deponent told him he would lose 
his life before he should be taken from him. He thought 
himself able to protect the child. 

Mr. Purcell was not like Mr. Mackercher, a philanthropist; 

he plainly declared that he was not even purely disinterested. 

He kept the boy in hopes that tlie boy " might recover bis 

birthright,' and be grateful; also because he himself was a 

40 



Introduction. 

good fellow. When the boy left him and went to Mr. Tigh 
he took no more trouble; the boy might resent having been 
" corrected " (deservedly) for staying out all night. 

The defendant, at Jones', used language unbecoming a chair- 
man ; this nobleman's style of speech on all occasions was that 
of Gin Lane; whenever his words are reported a modest critic 
must omit the flowers of his rhetoric. Uncle Dick, asked to 
explain his proceedings, told Mr. Purcell that " he could not 
make his appearance at the Castle, or anywhere, but he was 
insulted on that thieving son of a 's account. "i 

Here perhaps we have this nobleman's actual motive. He 
was asked questions at the Castle about this dubious boy. In 
1727, if the boy were a bastard, his uncle, if a wise man, 
would have proved the fact; if a man of ordinary mould, would 
then have provided for the boy in a suitable manner — no great 
expenditure was needed. But the Hon. Richard Annesley was 
neither wise, nor of ordinary mould, nor of common, decent 
kindness. He caused the boy to vanish, and, in his fool's heart, 
thought that all was well. 

Neither this procedure nor his later performance, when he 
prosecuted his probable nephew for murder, raises even a pre- 
Bumption that he knew the child to be legitimate. He knew 
that the child was, to him, a nuisance, and took what seemed 
the easiest, cheapest, and shortest way of getting rid of him. 
As it chanced, the ways were neither short, nor clean, nor 
cheap, but endlessly long, and extremely expensive, and in a 
high degree infamous. It was not Charles Reade, it was not the 
patriotic Smollett, it was the author of Barry Lyndon, who, 
as a novelist, should have dealt with Uncle Dick — with Richard 
Annesley, Earl of Anglesea. 

That the boy was a nuisance to this nobleman appeared 
from the evidence adduced for the claimant of Mr. Silcross 
Ash, one of the attorneys of the Court of Common Pleas. He 
was in company with Lord Anglesea, after the death of Lord 
Altham (1727), and heard a gentleman say that at Lord 
Altham's funeral there was a boy who cried and made a great 
noise, and called himself Lord Altham's son. The defendant 
" swore he was an impostor and a vagabond, and ought to be 

' 8eo page 1 42. 

41 



The Annesley Case. 



transported." The tulk arose out of the fact that either one 
Wilkinson, or one Cavanapfh, a dancinp: master (mixed up in 
the dol'endant's assault on Mr. Mackercher at the Curragh 
equabble in September, 1743), had been sent by the defendant 
to Mr. Hawkins, King-at-Arms, to enrol him as Baron Altham. 
Hawkins had demurred on account of the boy's proclamation of 
himself as son of Lord Altham at the funeral. Ash said tliat 
if the boy was a vagabond he could be indentured as an appren- 
tice, and transported. Some time afterward.s the defendant 
said '■ in an easy manner " that " the boy was gone." Awkward 
evidence this of Mr. Silcross Ash ! 

The men who helped the boy out of the way next gave their 
evidence. Mark Byrne swore that one Donnelly, a constable, 
offered him half a guinea to join in an exploit. They went 
together to Jones' house, where the defendant accused the boy 
of stealing a silver spoon, and told the ruffians to take the lad 
to George's Quay. The boy cried and said that his uncle 
would kill or transport him. They put the boy in a boat, and 
poor Byrne received only a shilling from Donnelly. There was 
a crowd, and in the last part of the journey they took a coach. 

To the same effect swore James Reilly, who had been a 
servant of the defendant. He said nothing of Jones' house ; 
he was summoned to meet the defendant at George's Quay. 
Thence my lord sent him to borrow a guinea, which Reilly got 
from Mrs. Kelly, of the Butchers' Arms, near Inchicore. He 
returned, and the defendant gave the guinea to John Donnelly, 
who departed. Bryan Donnelly and Byrne put the boy into a 
boat, and defendant, the two Donnellys, Reilly, and the boy 
were rowed to a ship at King's End, a mile from Dublin. The 
walk in seaich of the guinea and the return occupied about an 
hour. As the Lord Chief Baron said, " There was a difficulty 
to reconcile the evidence of this Reilly," who was also on ill 
terms with Lord Anglesea about his unpaid wages. 

The name James Annesley was shown entered in the list of 
indentured persons on board the ship James, which sailed from 
Dublin on 20th April, 1728. It was usual to indenture the 
servants before the Lord Mayor. Mr. Gonne, town-clerk of 
Dublin, produced the indenture book, in which was found no 
James Annesley, but a James Hennesley, indentured on 28^^ 
March, 1728. 

42 



Introduction. 

Defendant's counsel very naturally insisted that this James 
Hennesley was merely James Annesley mis-spelled, as it was 
spelled " Annsley " in the ship's list of " men and women ser- 
vants " on board. The I'eply was that Hennesley might be one 
of the twenty persons who appeared in the town-clerk's book 
of indentures, but who did not appear in the ship's list. 

Serjeant Marshall, for the claimant, said, in addressing the 
jury, " I believe the gentlemen of the other side will not deny 
that the transportation is proved to a demonstration." But 
Prime Serjeant Malone, for the defendant, argued that 
Hennesley and Annesley were the same person, that Hennesley 
was actually indentured in March, and that probably the boy, 
tired of staying with Mr. Tigh, had indentured himself, and 
gone to America of his own free will. The coincidence of a 
James Hennesley, who was indentured and disappeared a month 
before James Annesley was kidnapped and put on board ship, 
is in a high degree improbable, though more improbable coin- 
cidences have occurred. There is the chance that some creature 
of the defendant did in March indenture a boy under the name 
of Hennesley, and then let him go, to be cover for the later 
transportation of James Annesley; but this proceeding is too 
clever to bo of defendant's own invention. Keilly's evidence 
about the borrowed guinea can hardly have been invented, 
and is very characteristic of the impecunious Uncle Dick. 

Accepting Purcell's evidence as to the scene with the ruffians 
at Jones' house, the intentions of Uncle Dick were then obvious, 
and the presumption is that he did succeed in kidnapping and 
transporting the boy on 30th April, 1728. 

XIV. 
The Staines Shooting. 

The next step in the claimant's case was to prove that the 
defendant malignantly prosecuted him for his accidental shoot- 
ing of Thomas Egglestone at Staines, thereby showing that 
he knew the claimant's claims to be just, and theroioro 
endeavoured to have him hanged. The chief witness, John 
Giffard, an English attorney in the Court of Common Pleas. 
we have met bet'oio, engaged in working up the Staines shooting 

43 



The Annesley Case. 



case for the defendant. There was dispute as to accepting the 
evidence of a solicitor agninst a client, but the three judges 
concurred in admitting Giflfard's testimony. Giffard swore that 
between December, 1741, and 2nd May, 1742, Lord Anglesea 
was involved in lawsuits with his kinsmen, Charles and Francis 
Annesley. These suits arose out of the inconceivably confused 
will made by James, second Earl of Anglesea, on 14th May, 
1701. According to Giffard's evidence, in March and till Ist 
May, 1741, Lord Anglesea, who had heard of the claimant's 
intended return from America to England, declared that for 
£2000 or £3000 a year " he would resign to the claimant the 
estates of Anglesea and Altham, and would retire to France, 
for he was weary of being sued and tormented, and would 
rather his brother's son should have it than any other person. 
For if Jemmy had the estates on these terms he should live 
much happier and easier in France than he was here, for it 
was his right, and he would surrender it to him." Lord 
Anglesea was so much in earnest that he engaged a Mr. Hayes, 
an oflScer in French service, to teach him the language of 
Moliere, and Giffard saw teacher and pupil together " forty 
times." 

In these resolutions the defendant remained till on 2nd May 
he heard that the claimant had shot a man at Staines; then 
he suddenly changed his mind, and sent for Giffard to watch 
the Staines case, while he should work with a surgeon, a led 
captain of his, named Jans, later conspicuous in the Curragh 
assault. My lord said, with characteristic inconsistency, " that 
he did not care if it cost him £10,000 to get the plaintiff 
hanged, for then he should be easy in his title and estate." 
But he would have been no easier than before, for he would still 
be pestered by the suits of Charles and Francis Annesley and 
other litigants. 

Meanwhile Mr. Jans, the led captain and agent of Lord 
Anglesea, supplied money to Mr. Giffard when money was 
needed. Knowing all this, and knowing, as he admitted, that 
" Lord Anglesea's resolution was to destroy the plaintiff if he 
could," Mr. Giffard acted as Lord Anglesea's agent, and, later, 
betrayed Lord Anglesea's confidences. He apprehended that 
"Lord Anglesea was engaged in a most wicked crime," " but 
any lord is apt to be very flashy in his discourse." Mr. Giffard 
44 



Introduction. 

added this deserved criticism, " If there was any dirty wo-k 
I was not concerned in it. ... I make a distinction 
between carrying out a prosecution and compassing the death 
of a man." 

" How came you to make that distinction? " "I may as 
well ask how the counsel came to plead the cause." 

Here (The Trial at Bar) Mr. Baron Mounteney interjects, 
" An attorney might think himself well warranted by the 
verdict founded upon the coroner's inquest to prosecute, and 
not think it a bad action." 

All depends on the attorney. Mr. Giffard was not a Bayard 1 
The prosecution cost £800; Mr. Giffard was only paid £470. 
He was obliged to sue for his right. Lord Anglesea " filed a 
bill in the Exchequer to disclose what business I had done for 
him" : Mr. Giffard, in reply, was obliged to disclose this busi- 
ness in his bill of costs ; the truth came out, and so Mr. Giffard 
was subpoenaed as a witness in the great trial. He now men- 
tioned that Lord Anglesea sometimes spoke of the claimant as 
his own bastard, sometimes as his brother's. Yet the flashi- 
ness of this nobleman's discourse led him at another moment 
to say that the title and estates " were Jemmy's right." What 
Lord Anglesea said at one moment he contradicted in the next ; 
his motives were a mixture of spites and rancours against all 
and sundry, and no conclusion as to his knowledge of the 
claimant's birth, legitimate or illegitimate, can be drawn from 
anything that this nobleman said or did. 

The observations made by the counsel on both sides have 
been introduced into the narrative when they seemed to the 
point. The claimant's counsel insisted that Lord Anglesea's 
conduct, in the transportation of the boy, and in the Staines 
case, was strong presumption of his knowledge that his nephew 
was legitimate. 

XV. 
The Defendant's Witnesses. 

After some remarks of the Attoinoy-Gcncral on the various 
improbabilities in the claimant's case, and on the absence 
of Joan Landy from the witnesses' table, Colonel Loftus was 
called. lie was a grandee whose house was distant eight 

45 



The Annesley Case. 



miles from Dunmaiue. lie " bud heard that the AlthamB 
lived there"; never visited them, never heard of the birth 
of a child to them ; knew Alderman Barnes ; knew that bis 
health was impaired, but offered no opinion about his mind 
and memoiy. He had once seen Lady Altham : "at a distance, 
she was shown to me at a window, and I was told it was her." 

Thomas I'alliser, senior, was a neighbour of, and very inti- 
mate with, the Althams. He must have heard of it if she had a 
child or miscarriage. Joan Laffan had been turned out of 
his own house for incontinence, and was an infamous woman. 
Mr. Palliser's memory for dates was impossibly hazy; he had 
no support for his assertion that Joan was not to be believed 
on her oath. He remembered seeing Lord Altham in Dublin 
when "the Pretender" was in Scotland (January, 1716), 
Lord Altham had then lost an eye. But he lost this eye after 
he left Dimmaine, that is, in 1718; "he was shot in at the 
window, and never lived at Dunmaine after." Such was the 
memory of Mr. Palliser 1 

William Wall, Esq., of Maryborough, spoke of a conversation 
with Lord Altham after 1725. Wall about that time saw 
the boy at Ross, ragged and neglected, and Lord Altham said 
that he was Joan Landy's brat of dubious fatherhood; the 
boy was then six or seven years old. The boy must have 
been ten or eleven, and we never hear that he was near Ross 
in or after 1725. Nor was Lord Altham living at Dunmaine 
"about 1725, 1726, or 1727 or 1728 "—when he was dead I 
Mr. Wall was the most hopeless of witnesses. 

The evidence for the defendant of Mr. Lambert^ was so 
handled by the Lord Chief Baron, in addressing the jury2 
as rather to favour the claimant. Mr. Lambert was fre- 
quently at Dunmaine, "dunning" Lord Altham, as he said, 
for a debt. He spoke of one Sutton, a famous surgeon, dis- 
missed from Lord Altham's household about two or three 
months after Christmas, 1713. This might bring the dis- 
missal to March. Sutton went to live at Ross, and " some 
time afterwards " (say in April) Lady Altham thrice sent for 
Sutton to attend her. Sutton twice refused to come, out of 
pique, but did go to Dunmaine when Lady Altham's chariot 



^See page 177. 
3See page 321. 
46 



Introduction. 

was sent to fetch him. He then attended Lady Altham " for 
about a fortnight." The Lord Chief Baron suggested that 
this long attendance might, in the jury's opinion, " tally pretty 
near " with the miscarriage attested by Mrs. Cole. Asked as to 
the relations between Lord Altham and his brother the de- 
fendant, Mr. Lambert said that they were variegated. He met 
the defendant, then Captain Annesley, in Ross. Captain 
Annesley said, " Damn that Moll Sheffield; she has turned me 
out of the house on account of my principles ! " What the de- 
fendant's principles were is unknown, but " Moll Sheffield " for 
Lady Altham is the term used by Lord Altham for the mother 
of his child, to the bewilderment of Alderman Barnes, who 
certainly did not invent that part of hisi evidence. Joan 

Laffan was a and a thief, in Mr. Lambert's opinion. He 

had been ill for sis years and " I have forgot everything 
remarkable." However, Mr. Lambert swore that, though a 
neighbour of the Altham's, he never heard a whisper about a 
child born to Lady Altham. On the other side, though not 
during the trial, Mr. Sandford of Sandford Court, in 1715 
High SheriflE of Kilkenny, made oath that Mr. Lambert had 
joined him in congratulating Lord Altham on the birth of an 
heir, and in " drinking the health of the young peer." (See 
his evidence later.) 

Was there ever (as Mr. Mackercher had prophesied that there 
would be) such " bloody swearing"? We have lere, not a 
contradiction between two ignorant peasant women, but between 
two men of good estates and high standing in Irish society, and 
Mr. Sandford's evidence is full in detail. 

Mr. William Elms was equally rich in details as to Joan 
Landy, whose brother was a cotter on his lands. He often 
saw her child at her father's cabin ; the child was not less than 
three years old, was between three and four when Lady Altham 
left Dunmaine. (He must have been under two years old.) 
There was no road from Dunmaine to Joan's cabin, which was 
of one room with a partition of turf, and was " full of dung." 
Joan Lallan could not be credited on oath. 

The undefeated Joan was called, " when she comes upon the 
table and says, ' Your servant, Mr. Elms.' Asked if Mr. Elms 
could be credited on his oath? ' Indeed, I lielieve so; I can't 
say no harm to the gentleman,' " answered Joan. She stood 

47 



The Annesley Case. 

by the road to Joan Landy's house. Elms first denied that 
there was any road, and then said that the road was made 
to lead to Captain Giffard's house — which certainly was not 
the case. He made an effort to accuse Joan of stealing the 
feathers out of a feather bed when she was leaving Dimmaine. 
Joan had her riposte to this charge. 

The next witness, Mrs. Giffard, as a very near neighbour 
and intimate of Lady Altham, was most important. Either 
she or the claimant's best witnesses committed deliberate per- 
jury, wilful and corrupt. Her jointure (£40) was charged on 
an estate of the late Lord Anglesea's; she never heard that the 
defendant claimed the rent. Mrs. Giffard not only never heard 
of any prospect of a child to Lady Altham, but was in her 
company at the Wexford Assizes, 16th-22nd April, 1715, at the 
very time when Lady Altham must have become a mother, or, 
at all events, could not have been amusing herself at the trial 
of some alleged Jacobites, Masterson and Walsh, at Wexford. 
" We lodged at one Sweeny's." We could not guess that 
" one Sweeny " was the husband of Mrs. Giffard's sister, and 
that Mrs. Sweeny, who did not appear at this trial, because 
she remembered nothing of the matter, would be able to give 
a very full and particular account, in the trial of Mary Heath 
(1716), of Lady Altham's residence in her house in April, 1715. 
Under cross-examination Mrs. Giffard said that in Court, at 
Wexford, Mr. Caesar Colclough sat beside her and Lady Alt- 
ham. (This Mr. Colclough vigorously denied.) Mrs. Giffard 
never used the road which, on Elms's evidence, led from Dun- 
ma ine to her house. 

As the judge said in summing up the case to the jury, if it 
could be proved that Lady Altham was at the assizes from 15th 
or 16th April to 22nd April, in 1715, then went bac£ to Dun- 
maine for two or three weeks, and then went to Dublin for the 
season, the story of her confinement in April-May, 1715, was 
absurd. But Ker, clerk to Lord Chief Justice Foster, could 
not remember the presence of any ladies at the assizes. .Mr. 
Colclough (who was present and concerned about a kinsman 
involved) said that he " could not remember to have seen Lady 
Altham there, and she could not attend that trial and sit near 
him but he must have known it. He could not have sat by 
any lady at that trial, he was solicitous for Mr. Masterson, 



Introduction. 

who was his relation, and if any woman of distinction had been 
there, he believes he should have heard of it." He added, 
under cross-examination, that he knew nothing of Mrs. Giffard'a 
character as a witness, but that " she was very poor." 

The Lord Chief Baron added that two witnesses, Turner, 
the seneschal, and Higginson swore — Turner that he saw Lord 
Altham go into the coach and start for Wexford, while Lady 
Altham stayed at home; Higginson that he was at Dunmaine 
on the Tuesday of the assizes, saw my lady, and "drank to 
her safe delivery." Further, Mrs. Giflfard said that another 
sister of hers did not go with them to the assizes, and Mary 
Heath said that Mrs. Giffard's sister rode with them thither 
(and in 1745 the evidence of her sister, Mrs. Sweeny, supported 
Mary Heath). i Such are the flat contradictions of evidence 
in every essential point. 

The next witness, Mr. Thomas Palliser, was but a schoolboy 
in 1713, and was constantly at Lord Altham's house. Early 
in 1716 Lord Altham told him that he was determined to get 
rid of his wife, for Lord Anglesea detested her, "and, since 
I have no child by her, I will part with her." Four or five 
days later his lordship executed a plot to get rid of his wife. 
He awoke Mr. Palliser early on a Sunday morning (here Mr. 
Palliser mentioned that he had a premonitory dream), said 
that he was going to church, and bade Mr. Palliser '' keep her 
ladyship company." Palliser went to Lady Altham's room, 
" where he had often breakfasted before," when in came my 
lord, with servants, and thrust at him with a sword; he was 
then hustled into another room, where he was knocked sense- 
less, and a servant cut a piece of his ear off. He never saw 
any child in the house. He never saw a child in Joan Laffan's 
arms; Joan was " a vile woman," a chambermaid. 

Joan was called back; she mentioned undignified details 
about Mr. Palliser; said that, on this fatal Sunday morning, 
he and Lord Altham, with two hangers-on, breakfasted 
together in "Sot's Hole" "on mulled wine," that Palliser 
then walked into Lady Altham's bedroom, where he put on a 
satin nightcup of my lord's. Slie described the atrocity 
committed on Palliser; she entered the room after it, and the 
child in her arms pointed to the blood. She had before that 



'See page .319. 
E 49 



The Annesley Case. 



seen Palliser playing: with tlio child. Palliser swore that he 
never saw any child in the house. 

The Lord Chief Baron said that she had not contradicted 
herself, but that she and Palliser flatly contradicted each other. 
Palliser admittetl that Joan's memory was correct about the 
drinking of mulled wine in Sot's Hole. He believed that he 
wore a white nightcap in Lady Altham's room. As for Lord 
Altham, Mr. Palliser challenged him twice, and "posted" 
him on the Cross at New Ross, but Lord Altham fled the 
country. 

Certainly either Mr. Palliser or Joan, with her vivid memory 
and details in the manner of De Foe, was deeply perjured, 
and it is hardly conceivable that Mr. Palliser should be the 
sinner. We know nothing of him except from the trial, but 
to believe in such villainy on his part is difficult. 

Thomas Rolph, some time butler to Lord Altham, was, as 
the Lord Chief Baron remarked, a very clear witness for the 
defendant. Rolph averred that he was in Lord Altham's 
service both betore and after the date of Lady Altham's alleged 
delivery, which contradicted the statements of witnesses for 
the claimant; accoi'ding to them, Meagher was butler. There 
was no child born to Lady Altham. In cross-examination he 
attributed the fatherhood of Joan Landy's baby to — the 
defendant ! He remembered many names of the servants, but 
not that of Mary Doyle. He said that Mr. - Mackercher had 
tried to bribe him by the offer of a lieutenancy. He swore 
that the Althams were at Wexford Assizes in April, 1715. The 
Lord Chief Baron said that Rolph, in cross-examination, 
showed " absolute uncertainty as to everything except what 
he was brought to disclose," while he differed entirely from 
Mrs. Giffard's evidence as to the famous road to Joan Landy's 
cabin. Anthony Dyer, Lord Altham's valet, also fell into a 
great discrepancy compared with the other servants on the 
defendant's side. 

XVI. 
Mary Heath. 

We now arrive at Mary Heath, Lady Altham's maid from 
1713 to 1729. We have already seen that an all-importunt 
piece of her evidence — Lady Altham never showed signs of 
5° 



Introduction. 

mateniity — was disproved by Dr. Jemmat and Mrs. Mon- 
crieffe (in Mary's trial for perjury, in which she was acquitted 
in 1745). Mary Heath found Joan Landy already with child 
about Christmas time, 1713. She " did not care my lady 
should know anything about it," which Avould explain Lady 
Altham's taking (if she did) Joan for her own child's wet nurse. 
She swore to the visit to Wexford Assizes, with a discrepancy 
from Mrs. Giffard's testimony, as we saw. The trouble with 
Tom Palliser was in the early morning, but it was " duskish " 
before Lady Altham left the house for Ross. Dusk is early 
in February, but some eight hours must have passed. Betty 
Doyle, not Mary, was in the family. Here Serjeant Malone 
deserted his witness. It was to the handsome Mary that 
Major Fitzgerald gave half a guinea at Dunmaine, according 
to the Serjeant and Major Fitzgei-ald himself. 

We have already discussed Mary's contradictions of Mrs. 
Cole about Lady Altham's miscarriage, her denial that Lady 
Altham ever showed any sign, or even had any hope of being 
a mother. On these points she cannot have sworn truly, and, 
again, she could not remember, though her memory was won- 
derfully good, the fortnight's attendance of Sutton, the 
surgeon, on Lady Altham. 

She told a ciirinus story about Mr. Mackercher. He visited 
her at her house on 13th April, 1742; she proved the date by 
a document. At that time Mr. Mackercher had not wholly 
committed himself to the claimant's cause, and he told Mary 
how the claimant had been brought to her by Mr. Simpson 
and another naval lieutenant; how he gave the claimant ten 
guineas and a room in his house, and asked Mary if Lady 
Altham ever had a son. Mary denied, told him about the 
iniquities of Joan Laffan, and so moved "the melting Scot" 
that he vowed he would abandon the whole case. 

Mr. Mackercher, unhappily for himself, changed his mind, 
though not on the evidence of a Mr. Hussey, concerning whom 
Mary was asked questions by the claimant's counsel. Mary's 
memory was very weak as to when she first met Mr. Hussey, 
counsel suggesting that it was when news first came in the 
Daily Post to the effect that Mr. Annesley was on a ship of 
A<lmiral Vernon's (12tlj February, 1743). Counsel was right. 
Mary swore that she never heard even a report that Lady 

51 



The Annesley Case. 

Altham had a child at Dunmaine, and, as Major Fitzgerald, 
Mr. Shawford, and others make it certain that the report was 
rife, we cannot but surmise that Mary proved too much. 

Martin Neif, the bhicksniith at Dunmaine, identified the 
boy who was in the house and at Kinnea with Joan Landy's 
brat. Lord Altham would flog him sorely for petty faults, and 
say that he had too much of Joan Landy's blood in him. He 
accompanied Lady Altham to Ross on tlie day of separation ; 
she took leave of no child, as Joan Laffan swore that she did. 
At Kinnea the child was treated as a bastard. Martin Neif 
was not shaken in cross-examination. Two or three other 
people of his rank were equally firm on the defendant's side. 

The Rev. Father Michael Downes knew Lord and Lady 
Altham, lived within a mile of them, dined with them, and 
never heard that Lady Altham had a child. He did, however, 
christen Joan Landy's child, whom he afterwards saw with 
Lord Altham at Dunmaine, when his lordship said to the little 

boy, " You son of a , why don't you make a bow to him 

who made you a Christian?" The child was brought to him 
for baptism by Joan Landy's grandmother. 

Against Father Downes the claimant produced Father Ryan, 
who swore that Father Downes had told him, while they were 
riding together, that he was to receive £200 for his evidence. 
Ryan said, "You are old; your memory may be treacherous," 
whereon Downes replied " that he should get absolution from 
some other gentleman if his memory was not sufficient to 
support his oath." Downes denied the whole conversation, 
and Colonel Loftus, on whose ground he lived, gave him a 
good character. 

The evidence of Mr. Robert King, an alderman of Dublin, 
was purely negative, but made for the defendant as far as it 
went. Lady Altham, with Mary Heath and a footman, lodged 
at his house in 1723, and the lady dined at his table for several 
months. " She had a paralytic disorder," but her mind was 
sound ; she often lamented her misfortunes, but Mr. King never 
heard her talk of a son. He was not cross-examined. 

Elizabeth Doyle was a set-off against Mary Doyle. She 
came to Dunmaine on Christmas Eve, 1713, and was laundry- 
maid. Her evidence was that at some uncertain date Lord 
Altham asked her to dry-nurse Joan Landy's child. She 
52 



Introduction. 

never heard that Lady Altham had a baby. She did not 
remember the names of auy of the servants who were with 
her at Dunmaine, and she did know Mr. Jans, the defendant's 
led captain, who got up the case, and did much dirty woi-k 
for his lordship. 

Elizabeth MacMullen gave similar evidence, but added that 
at Lord Altham' s funeral the boy said he was the son of Joan 
Landy and Lord Altham, and wept. The boy can scarcely 
have given this pedigree on that occasion I Mrs. MacMullen 
was too eager. 

Thomas Barrett swore that the boy lived in poverty at Ross, 
about 1724. The boy was about five years old, which would 
place his birth in 1719. Colonel Becket and William Harman, 
Esq., were perfectly positive that Lord Altham spoke of the 
boy as a bastard, in Miss Gregory's time and earlier, at Kinnea. 
In fact, if swoni evidence could prove anything, the defendant's 
witnesses and the claimant's proved contradictories. 

When all the witnesses for the defendant had been heard 
the claimant's counsel were allowed to call fresh witnesses. 
They heard with pain that the credit of Joan Laflfan was im- 
peached ; Joan must be cleared. First, as to Wexford Assizes, 
they produced Mr. Cfesar Colclough, who, acording to Mrs. 
Giffard, had sat next Lady Altham and herself. Mr. Col- 
clough remembered the trial very well, for his kinsman and 
friend, Mr. Masterson, had been accused of raising recruits for 
King James; and, "by the virtue of his oath," Lady Altham 
did not sit near him, he would not sit that day by any lady ; 
nor did he believe that Lady Altham was in the town that 
day. " I was taking care of Mr. Masterson. I would not 
at that time have sat by the fairest lady in Christendom." 
Mrs. Giffard's family was reduced, and poor — " their circum- 
stances are altered, and so may their honesty be for ought that I 
know." 

John Hussey was then called. He explained that on Thurs- 
day last a person had whistled at his gate and roused one of 
his servants. Tlic person gave the name of " Keiling " or 
" Keith " (Paul Keating probably). The person was sent to 
ask about a conversation which Hussey once had with Mary 
Heath. Hussey said that he had " forgotten good part of it," 
but saw the man, who served on him a 8ub])a5na. The gist 

S3 



The Annesley Case. 



of Hussey's memory was that " about two years and a half 
ago " (early in 1741, when news of the claimant's retuin from 
America ariived) a gentlewoman took him to drink tea with 
Mrs. Heath, who said, " Nobody knows that young man's 
affairs better than I, because I long lived with his mother, the 
Lady Altham " ; and she (Maiy) "expressed a great deal of 
concern for him and the circumstances he was in. She told 
me, withal, that the Duchess of Buckingham " (the duke, Lady 
Altham's father, was dead) " sent for her three times. . . ." 
Now, Mary Heath, under cross-examination, had said that she 
first heard of the claimant's purpose of returning from the 
duchess, who had made a small pension to Lady Altham. Cross- 
examined, Hussey said that he had spoken of this talk to many, 
including his brother, but never to any agent of the claimant 
before Friday last. He had been steward to one of the Royal 
yachts. In July, 1743, Mrs. Heath had told him that she 
was going to Ireland to be a witness for the defendant. This 
struck him as being at variance from her concern for her 
mistress's son in 1741. He was positive that then Mary 
Heath spoke of " his mother, Lady Altham." Being a 
Catholic he held no commission ; he was employed by the 
Board of Green Cloth. 

Mary Heath was recalled, and swore that she had never 
used the words attributed to her. As for Hussey, " some 
said that he was a gentleman's servant, and some that he lived 
by gaming." 

Hussey, recalled, repeated his statement. Mary exclaimed, 
" I never thought you were such a man. I've heard people 
say you were a gamester, and lived in an odd way, but I would 
never believe it till now ; but I always took your part, and 
said you always behaved like a gentleman." 

Mr. Hussey replied, " I am a gentleman, and can bring 
several people to justify me to be a gentleman and a man of 
family. Indeed, I have heard you say it, and speak it with 
all the regret and concern imaginable " — regret, namely, that, 
being a gentleman, he was reduced to a small post under the 
Board of Green Cloth. He appears, in Ireland, to have had 
a house with a gate and a gravel walk, and servants. Under 
cross-examination he said that he knew not, till subpoenaed on 
Thursday night, that he was to be a witness. He said nothing 
54 



Introduction. 

to Mary Heath upon her change of mood in July. (If he were 
a gentleman, of course, he would not do so, as he observed 
in answer to defendant's counsel, " it was no affair of mine.") 
Moreover, at the talk in July the conversation of 1741 was 
not present to his memory. " It did not come into my head ; 
I gave myself no trouble about it." It had been in and out 
of his memory ; he could not be certain whether it were in or 
out in July last. The persons whom he named that were 
present at the conversation in 1741 were not present at this 
trial, or at that of Mary Heath. Hussey does not seem to 
have lied ; he might have a hallucination of memory, or he 
might remember correctly. The Duchess of Buckingham was 
not called. Higginson now gave the evidence on which we 
have already commented as to his seeing Lady Altham, great 
with child, at Dunmaine during the Wexford Assizes. 

Father Ryan, as already said, spoke of Father Downes' 
ride with him a twelvemonth before and his talk of receiving 
£200 for his evidence, and getting absolution if he had mis- 
remembered. Father Downes denied that he had ever ridden 
with Father Ryan. " I rode along with you," said Ryan, " to 
the place where you used to say Mass, and Mass was not had 
there, because a woman was dead in the place, and so we rode 
on to Tyntem." " If that was the time, I believe I was with 
you," said Father Downes. He then denied the whole con- 
versation, and spoke of his brother in Holy Orders as " a vile, 
drunken, whoremaster dog " ; such were his apostolic phrases. 

Mrs. Cole and Mary Heath were confronted, and contradicted 
each other. 

Here the edifying contest of witnesses ended. 

XVII. 
Speeches of Counsel. 

Mr. Prime Serjeant Malone, after making a long statement 
about the confused wills and codicils of James Earl of Anglesea 
(November-December, 1701 ; January, 1702), dwelt upon the 
huge improbability that the birth of an heir to Lord Altham 
would not have l>een blazoned abroad and firmly registered. 
But there was no parish register ; and Lord Altham was — Lord 
Altham I We must remember that things all but morally 

55 



The Annesley Case. 

impossible were even probable in the conduct of tliis besotted 
being at feud with the contemporary Earl of Anglesea. As 
for Lady Altham, her father the duke, outwearied by her 
conduct (she was said to have borne a child to a Mr. Segrave 
in Holland), actually caused her tiny pension from him to 
cease at Lord Altham's death. Lord Altham had proclaimed 
his fatherhood to Major Fitzgerald, Lord Mount Alexander, 
Turner, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Shawford, then High Sheriff of 
Kilkenny, all of whom reputable witnesses, surviving in 1743. 
He may have thought that he had done enough ; and, if he 
lied — it was very like him to do so. But where did he get the 
new-born babe shown to Major Fitzgerald? 

Malone's attack on Mrs. Cole's evidence was confused by the 
fact of her true age in 1714, of which she did not procure evi- 
dence till the trial in 1745, Malone made the most of a 
very strong point — the claimant's witnesses remembered 
Meagher as butler at Dunmaine in April, 1715, whereas Rolph 
butler in 1714, continued to serve till Michaelmas, 1715. The 
reply from the other side was that Rolph's and Mary Heath's 
evidence were manufactured articles, as Rolph showed by invent- 
ing an excuse, which was proved to be false, for the road made 
to Joan Landy's house, and by certain features of the visit 
to Wexford Assizes. Of Malone's treatment of Major Fitz- 
gerald's evidence we have said enough — it is amazing that a 
man foremost in his profession should have blundered in that 
fashion. Again, he offered as a solution of Joan Laffan's 
evidence the hypothesis that she "came into Lord Altham's 
service about harvest in 1716, and that she lived in the service 
about half a year before the separation." But the separation 
occurred seven months before the harvest of 1716. Moreover, 
Mr. Tom Palliser admitted the accuracy of Joan's memory of 
some details of the stormy day of separation. Mr. Prime 
Serjeant Malone was as much perplexed among his dates as 
any peasant who gave evidence, if we may trust the long report 
of his speech in the Folio of 1744; and he had forgotten 
Mr. Tom Palliser's evidence. 

The learned Serjeant asked if Lord Altham's cruelty to the 

boy, if the boy were legitimate, " could be conceived of in any 

man living of common sense, goodness, and humanity." But 

to be wholly destitute of common sense, goodness, and humanity 

56 



Introduction. 

was the very essence of the character of Lord Altham, while 
his cruelty and neglect were incompatible vith sense, goodness, 
and humanity even if the boy were a bastard. The improb- 
ability of Lady Altham's making no effort to see the boy in 
Dublin, when he was decently treated, is great; but if she said, 
as one witness swore, that she could not protect Lord Altham's 
servants if they brought him to her in her paralysed condition, 
she spoke sense, and Lord Altham's servants knew that she 
was poor and powerless. The attempts to explain away the kid- 
napping and transportation of the boy were failures; but it 
was easy to " abuse the claimant's attorney," the attorney 
Giffard, who revealed the confidences made to him by the de- 
fendant, about his readiness to spend £10,000 in having the 
claimant hanged. 

The Solicitor-General treated as manufactured evidence that 
of Turner, Barnes, and Major Fitzgerald. The major's tale 
about all that occurred at Dunmaine is " the deckings and 
ornamental parts of his story, which are now become useless 
by his failing in fundamentals " — that is by his erroneous date, 
September for April-May. 

A barrister must be staunch indeed to his client when he 
can treat hostile and honourable testimony with such easy 
impudence. He concluded, " The plaintiff's witnesses are 
mean persons," whereas many of them were of good character 
and position. As to Hussey, the Solicitor-General actually 
said that the claimant's friends " made the man get acquainted 
with Mrs. Heath and lead her into a discourse," namely, early 
in 1741, when the claimant was on the high seas, was not 
known to be alive, and had no backers! 

The three reports of the speeches of counsel in the Folio, Tlie 
Trial at Bar, and the State Trials differ from each other in con- 
tent and extent. It is in The Trial at Bar that we find Prime 
Serjeant Malone displaying colossal ignorance of his own case, 
with a scarcely rivalled power of losing himself in dates; and it 
is in the Folio that the Solicitor-General insults Major Fitz- 
gerald, Alderman Barnes, and Mr. Turner, and blunders over 
Mr. Hussey. The manes of the learned counsel engaged must 
be placated by the statement that, in such diversity of reports 
we do not know what they said. Mr. Serjeant Malone may not 
have been intoxicated. Mr. Solicitor-General may have been 

57 



The Annesley Case. 



Bober and may not have been insolent. The reporters in short- 
hand may have been under drink taken and eloquently inven- 
tive. Que s^ais je? Perhaps the reporter of the Folio invented 
for the Solicitor-General the argument that Mrs. Pigot, Mr. 
Colclough, and Mr. Clifife, " gentry of middling fortune and 
families," were not great enough folk to be godparents of Lord 
Altham's son. They were gentle-folk, and grandees like Colonel 
Loftus were unacquainted with the disreputable, disorderly Alt- 
hams. But Mrs. Pigot was kind to poor Lady Altham, and 
her son, Mr, Southwell Pigot, was not allowed to ans'Wer the 
question, " Do you remember whether you ever heard from 
your mother whether she was godmother or not?"i It 
was known that his answer would be in the affirmarive. Mr. 
Paget, in his Pa/radoxes and Puzzles (1874) writes that the 
families of Colclough, Pigot, and Cliffe " still hold high posi- 
tions in the county of Wexford." Members of such families 
were the very best that Lord Altham could hope to obtain as 
sponsors of his child. 

As for Mr. Recorder, his arguments rested on the theory that 
Lord Altham could not have been the kind of man he un- 
doubtedly was, and that people could not, if truthful, be hazy 
about the date of an eclipse of twenty-eight years ago 1 " This 
is impossible. "2 The Recorder had a better point. John 
Scott, sometime servant of Mrs. Pigot, swore that " a dozen 
times " he carried messages from that lady to Lady Altham, 
with inquiries as to her health and that of the baby. He saw 
the boy brought to Mrs. Pigot three or four times. He de- 
livered his messages to my lord's gentleman, Dyer, and to 
Joan Laflfan. "Who was butler?" "One Thomas Rolph." 
The Recorder argued that Scott was right about Rolph, but 
lied about the child and the messages. Yet Scott's memory 
might conceivably be wrong as to the date when Rolph left 
his place. 

Mr. Serjeant Marshall's speech for the claimant was much 
shorter than that of Serjeant Malone. He made no blunders, 



1 Folio, p. 36. 

^From personal experience I can say that nothing is more probable. 
I was two yeans out in my dating of a very pretty comet, Halley's, 
which in boyhood I used to contemplate as it shone above the hills of 
Ettrick. 

58 



Introduction. 

and only very lightly touched on Serjeant Malone's chrono- 
logical error about Joan Laffan's date of residence at Dunmaine. 

He pointed out the disadvantages of his client. Exiled by 
the defendant, he had lost some fourteen years in which wit- 
nesses now dead could have spoken for him. As to the want 
of celebrity of his birth, the serjeant named the respectable wit- 
nesses who had heard of it at the time. The Althams had few 
friends of position, Mrs. Giflfard and Mrs. Latimer even did 
not visit Lady Altham when she went to stay at New Ross, but, 
by Mary Heath's evidence, Mrs. Pigot came frequently. 

If a false story was to be concocted on either side, the de- 
fendant, from his wealth, position, influence, and knowledge 
of the country could procure witnesses much more easily than 
the claimant. Seven or eight of the defendant's witnesses, 
with very bad memories, reported with verbal sameness remarks 
uttered thirty years ago, if uttered at all. The serjeant made 
the most about the denial of the making of a road to Joan 
Landy'e house; the withdrawal of the denial; the false attempts 
made to show that the road was constructed for other than its 
one purpose. As to Lady Altham's not seeing her child in 
Dublin in 1720-1724, the child was in his father's keeping till 
August or September, 1724, when Lady Altham sailed to 
England. Forsaken, poor, unable to move. Lady Altham 
could do nothing. The serjeant argued that in Lord Altham's 
last wretched years " it was absolutely for his benefit, in order 
to raise money, to desert this son and to disown him." The 
evidence of Wall as to seeing the boy in Ross in 1720-1721 was 
contradicted by all the testimony. Lord Altham was fond 
enough of his son till he fell under Miss Gregory, who hoped to 
marry my lord and have children to him. A mean mind like 
his might be led to believe that, though the child was Lady 
Altham's, it was not his own; an embittered suspicion would be 
increased by the greater chance of raising money if he dis- 
owned the boy, and his besotted brain would render him reck- 
less and indifferent. Counsel laid stress on the evidence of 
liutwich, the noldier, who made shoes for the boy when Lady 
Altham lived at Wright's house in Rosa, where she certainly 
did live. Lutwich, indeed, was among the best of tho wit- 
ne.Hses; he was a man well to do, and lived in England, inde- 
pendent of Irish influences, and, under cross-examination, he 
was very satisfactory. 

59 



The Annesley Case. 



Nothing novel was said by Serjeant Tisdall, but he did allude 
to the possibility of a theory that Lord Altham " (ould have 
formed a scheme of imposing a child upon a noble family." If 
so, where was the child? The child of Joan Landy was recog- 
nised universally as a bastard ; and defendant's witnesses swore 
that there was no child at Dunmaine while Liady Altham lived 
there. If they had not with one voice made this denial, if 
there were any trace in defendant's evidence of a new-born 
child's appearance in the Altham family in 1715, then lue 
theory of an Altham plot to bring in a warming-pan heir would 
be by far the most simple solution of the problem. But the 
defendant's witnesses closed that door. Mr. Walsh argued that 
Martin Neif's evidence as to the ill-treatment and neglect of 
the child at Kinnea, and the cruelty of his treatment, was con- 
tradicted by the testimony of many witnesses, such as the two 
Cavanaghs and Byrne. Lord Altham's neglect of the boy was 
due to Miss Gregory, and to 1 is own ever-sinking character. 



XVIII. 
The Judges' Addresses. 

The Lord Chief Baron reviewed the whole case with great 
lucidity, admitting the importance of Rolph's evidence for the 
defendant, but dwelling on ' ' his absolute uncertainty as to 
everything " under cross-examination, and his invented explana- 
tion of the reason for constructing the road to Joan Landy's 
cottage. His lordship then, as we saw, stated the great im- 
probabilities of the plaintiflE's case, adding that the jury must 
carefully consider the characters of Lord and Lady Altham. 
Some discreditable witnesses for the claimant must not be 
placed to his blame, considering his circumstances, and " that 
art may have been used to put them in his way." On the 
other hand, if the jury believed in the " wicked acts " attributed 
to the defendant, they must regard them merely as raising 
presumptions that he was aware of the claimant's legitimacy, 
not as proofs. As to haziness about dates, that was common 
to both sides, and in this haziness he included Major Fitz- 
gerald's date of his famous visit to Dunmaine. Lord Altham, 
said the judge, had sometimes asserted, at other times denied, 
60 




^^/^(jf/////,/^//'" "^SWiM' ^''^^^^'^'^'^/^^'''(^^■ 



The Ri?ht Hon. Lord Chief Baron Bowes. 



Introduction. 

that he had a legitimate son ; the jury might try to conjecture 
what his motives were in each case, and, if they could, might 
draw a conclusion. 

The Lord Chief Baron's address was a model of logic, 
lucidity, and impartiality. It is impossible to detect the 
slightest effort to bias the jury on either hand, or any sign of 
how his lordship would himself have voted. For a contrast we 
have the extremely partisan charge, and the distortions of 
evidence which the Lord Chief Justice addressed to the jury 
when Mary Heath was tried for perjury. 

Finally, after deliberating for two hoursi {State Trials) or for 
half an hour (Folio), the jury found for the plaintiff. Next 
day his counsel were bidden "take judgment," while to de- 
fendant's counsel a writ of error was allowed. As to public 
opinion, I quote the Duke of Devonshire, then Lord- 
Lieutenant : — 

(State Papers, Ireland.) 
(George II. vol. 405.) 

Duke of Devonshire to Duke of Newcastle. 

Dublin Castle, Nov. 28, 1743. 
. . . Till Mr. Annesley's Trial was over all business was at a stand. 
To be sure there will be accounts of that remarkable affair in England 
from some of those that attended it. There is scarce any one here 
(at least amongst those I see or hear of) but thinks the Jury have 
gained great reputation by their behaviour. There was but one gentle- 
man on it of a moderate fortune : they compute the estates of the 
whole twelve to be near 40,000£ per annm. 

Here is a journalist's view — 

General Evening Post. No. 1593. 

Saturday Dec. 3 to Tuesday Dec. 6, 1743. 
Ireland. 
(Extract of a letter from Dublin, dated 26 Nov. 1743.) 

The great cause wherein the Hon. James Annesley, Esq., was 
Plaintiff ended yesterday, when the Jury after a few minutes consulta- 
tion brought in a verdict for Mr. Annesley. 

Never was a cause of greater consequence brought to trial ; never 
any took up so much time in hearing, nor ever was there a jury com- 
posed of gentlemen of euch property, dignity & character. Eleven of 
the jury are members of Parliament, several of the Council, & the 
only one who ip not in cither is a gentleman of 1500/. a year ; the 

6i 



The Annesley Case. 

whole twelve being worth a million. Two of them lose near 400/. a 
year by their own verdict, and three others are nearly related to 
persons considerably intcrestod in the event of this great cause ; yet 
such was their regard to Truth and justice that nothing could bias 
them against conviction. 

No sooner had the foreman pronounced the words " We find for the 
Plaintiff" but the Hall rung with joyful acclamations, which in a few 
minutes were communicated to the whole city, and in less than a 
quarter of au hour all tlic streets seemed to be in a Blaze, and people 
of all conditions and degrees ran up and down congratulating each other 
as upon a public victory. In short never was there so universal a joy : 
the mueick that played in the streets, even the Bells themselves, being 
scarce heard amidst the repeated liu^sas of the multitude. 



XIX. 
The Trial of Mary Heath for Perjury. 

The claimant's affairs, if his funds held out, seemed to be 
going on favourably. In August, 1744, as we have seen, he 
was successful in his charge of assault at the Curragh against 
Lord Anglesea. Mr. Mackercher now made a tactical error. 
He accused Mary Heath of perjury, and on 24th October, 1744, 
the grand jury of the County of Dublin found a true bill. 
But by this time all the many persons variously interested in 
the Anglesea estates had united against the claimant — they 
had money and no scruples. The defendant Mary Heath re- 
moved the trial by certiorari into the Court of King's Bench, 
and delayed it, after the prosecutor's (the claimant's) witnesses 
had arrived. This is complained of in two printed letters 
called "A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Court of King's 
Bench." (London: J. King. 1745.) The author conciliates 
us by bedecking his title page with quotations from Webster 
and Massinger. He objects that such removals by certiorari 
are unusual; in this case it was oppressive, causing expense and 
delay; and the object was to secure a prejudiced Court un- 
favourable to the claimant. Lord Chief Justice Marlay, on 
the King's Bench, had " a singular attachment to a person, as 
is publicly known, whose all depends on " the verdict. This 
person, as I gather from her petition, i was Lady Haversham, 
It is undeniable, as the pamphleteer says, that " the partiality 
and warmth of the bench in favour " of Mary Heath was 

1 State Papers, Ireland, George II. vol. 406. 
62 



Introduction. 

declared from the first. Later, as I could not but recognise 
in the report of Mary Heath's trial in State Trials (vol. xviii. 
1-195), the Lord Chief Justice was distinctly unfair to the 
testimony of Mrs. Cole, Mr. Higginson, and other witnesses, 
actually declaring that they had said what they are not re- 
ported to have said. The pamphleteer makes the very same 
observations. 

The day for the trial had been fised, when Mary Heath, 
upon her affidavit that she could not yet procuie the presence 
of certain English and Irish witnesses, was again allowed to 
postpone the case till next term, in spite of the objections of 
the claimant's counsel, whose witnesses had long been in 
Dublin "eating their heads off." The Court, none the less, 
put off the trial to 4th February, 1745. 

But there are two sides to most questions — we must expose 
the events of November, 1744. The trial had been fixed for 
14th November, 1744, but on 10th November Mary Heath 
applied for a postponement, and made an affidavit. Many of 
her witnesses were in England; others, in Ireland, could not 
at that moment attend. But more than this, the reader may 
remember that when Higginson saw Lady Altham at Dun- 
maine in mid-April, 1715, he also saw Sarah Weedon, then 
wife, and in 1744 widow, of John Weedon, Lord Altham's 
coachman. Mary Heath made affidavit that, as she was in- 
formed, Sarah Weedon was now living in the house of Colonel 
Blakeney at Abbort, in Galway, and was so infirm that "she 
cannot travel this term. Moreover, Mary verily believes and 
is credibly informed that James Annesley and his advisers 
have lately, by bribes and otherwise, tried to seduce and can-y 
off the infirm Sarah, and had a horse and pillion ready, but 
were frustrated by Colonel Blakeney. Mary Heath therefore 
asks postponement till next term."i 

On 13th November Mr. Mackercher swore a contrai-y affidavit. 
He had been put to great expense for witnesses by a previous 
postponement of Mary's trial. His witnesses were now again 
collected, and some of them had instant calls to England, where 
they were constrained to be next term. As for Sarah Weedon 
he believed her to be a material evidence for his own side. 
Believing this, he sent Sarah's son Edward to Colonel Blakency's 



1 State Trialif, xviii. 1-4. 

63 



The Annesley Case. 

to bring her, but Edward, returning, averred that Colonel 
Blakeney detained Sarah by force, though she declared her 
willingness to give her testimony. Edward and John Wgedon 
(John was a servant in Colonel Blakeney's house) made affidavit 
to this effect on 8th November, and Mr. Mackercher had meant 
to move for a writ of habeas corpus for Sarah, but instead had 
sent a man to serve a subpoena on her. The man has not yet 
returned. Mr. Mackercher denies that any one to his know- 
ledge has tried, by bribe or otherwise, to secure and carry off 
Sarah from Colonel Blakeney's house. In no case has he 
any knowledge of attempts to bribe on his side, but has 
very sufficient proofs of attempts to bribe, corrupt, and intimi- 
date on the side of Lord Anglesea. The trial was postponed 
we saw to Ith February, 1745. 

On 20th November, 1744, the claimant's party moved for 
an attachment against Colonel Blakeney for preventing Sarah 
Weedon from obeying the subpccna already mentioned. James 
Magrath, Esq., attorney, made affidavit that he accompanied 
Andrew Ross on 13th November to the colonel's place, where 
he waited outside while, as he believes, Ross served the sub- 
poena. Ross then came out, observing that it was time for 
them to go, and that he would change horses with Magrath 
as soon as they turned the corner of the avenue. This was 
done, and Magrath, seeing mounted men following them, rode 
away swiftly, and so, he believes, escaped insult and injury. 
Ross corroborated and swore that Blakeney said he would send 
Magrath to Galway Gaol. " But the Court made no rule." 

On 21st November the claimant's party moved for a writ of 
habeas corpus to Blakeney, resting on the affidavits of John 
and Edward Weedon, Sarah's sons, who both swore that 
Blakeney, on 30th October, detained her illegally and against 
her will when they came to fetch her. The doors were locked, 
and Sarah, from a window, told them as much, and bid them 
go away to escape being "knocked on the head." 

On the other side, Thomas Blakeney, attorney, made an 
affidavit. Two days after the claimant's success, in 1743, his 
wife, who, like himself, lived near Colonel Blakeney's, wrote 
to him, telling him that old Mrs. Weedon lived at Abbort, and 
declared that the claimant was the son of Joan Landy, by Lord 
Altham as was supposed, and that in Ireland Lady Altham 
never bore a child. In last Christmas holidays Mr. Thomas 
64 



Introduction. 

Blakeney went to Abbort, saw Mrs. Weedon, found that sho 
gave this evidence, and again saw her, at full liberty, on 3rd 
November, 1744. He also learned from Colonel and Mrs. 
Blakeney that on 30th October, 1744, some people came and 
took away his servant, John Weedon, and that they had with 
them a horse with a pillion to carry o£E Sarah. Mrs. Weedon 
also at the same time asked him to recover her son Johnny, 
carried away from his service, for she greatly feared that his 
seducers would keep him constantly under drink taken. On 
8th November, at Dublin, Johnny came to deponent, who told 
him to go back to Colonel Blakeney. But Weedon said " he 
never would, for he would be much better provided for " by 
" the young Earl of Anglesea," the claimant. 
All this looked very ill for the methods of Mr. Mackercher. 
Another deponent from County Galway swore that Sarah 
was entirely mistress of her movements. Poor John Weedon 
next swore that his mother never said that she was detained 
against her will, but did declare that she was afraid of her life, 
afraid of being murdered by the Earl of Anglesea, who had 
sent last spring a man and a chair to bring her to Wexford, 
and served a subpoena on her, which she did not obey. 

Edward Weedon also admitted that his mother did not say 
that she was confined or imprisoned. The original affidavits 
of both brothers, unable as they were to read or write, were 
written out by Mr. Goostry. Mr. Justice Ward said, "It ia 
plain tliat the person who drew the affidavits knew that they 
were false, knew that these men swore to a fact they did not 
know to be true." The Weedons swore that their final con- 
fession was that which they told to the framer of the affidavits. 
But who can believe men so ignorant and so anxious to please? 
Probably they told Goostry all that he put into their affidavits — 
just to please him, and probaljly he did not believe them. How- 
ever, in November, 1744, Mr. Goostry was not in Ireland, and 
could not be dealt with by the Court. 

The pamphleteer of 1745 treats this matter thus. Some 
timo after OctoVxir, 1744, ?>lward Weedon, who had been page 
to the claimant in his childhood, told Mr. Mackercher that he 
had found that his mother, Sarah Weedon, had been taken 
into Colonel Blakcney's house, on the claimant's turning up, 
under colour of being a servant. To Edward Weedon sho 
w 65 



The Annesley Case. 

had sail! that she could testify in the claimant's favour if she 
" could pet out of that cursed country " where she was. Mr. 
Mackercher then wrote politely to Colonel Blakeney, received 
no reply, sent Weedon to bring his mother, served the sub- 
poena, and moved for a writ of habeas corpus, as we have seen. 
The Lord Chief Justice then examined the two Weedons, 
against the remonstrances of the claimant's counsel (which is 
true), and, says the pamj>hleteer, on a quibble as to the 
language of their aftidavits, committed them for " an intention 
of imposing on the Court." The defendant's party then made 
poor old Mrs. Weedon believe that it was the claimant who 
" had thrown both of her sons into prison," and by this and 
other arts led her to swear that the claimant was a bastard. 

If all this be true, Mr. Thomas Blakeney with his story of 
the letter from his wife announcing that Mrs. Weedon declared 
the claimant to be Joan Landy's brat is a deeply perjured 
attorney. 

But Mr. Mackercher, a sanguine man, may have been im- 
posed upon by Edward Weedon. It is possible to believe Mr. 
Mackercher when he swore that he understood Sarah Weedon to 
be a material witness on the claimant's side. It is not im- 
possible that Ekiward Weedon, who hung about Dublin without 
occupation, told Mr. Mackercher that his mother, Sarah, was 
on the side of the claimant, and hoped to bring her round to 
that party. The judges however, did not take the view that 
in the simplicity of Mr. Mackercher he was the confiding victim 
of Edward Weedon. 

On 4th February, 1745, the claimant's counsel moved for 
a postponement of the trial. It was postponed to 7th February, 
and then the Solicitor-General, for the claimant, announced 
that Mr. Mackercher and several most material witnesses, were 
storm-stayed at Holyhead, as also was Mr. Goostry, having 
left London for Holyhead on 17th January. But John 
Campbell, who sailed from Parkgate for Dublin on 30th 
January, after waiting eight days for a wind, swore that he 
heard nothing at Parkgate or at Holyhead about Mr. Mac- 
kercher and his company. It would not take them seventeen 
days to reach Holyhead from London, and, once at Holyhead, 
they could, like Campbell, reach Dublin by 4th February. 
But can we believe Campbell? 

The three judges decided that the trial must go on and 
66 



Introduction. 

the defendant agreed that an examination of Goostry, in 
writing, might be read, not subject to cross-examination. On 
8th February, very early, the trial began, the jury being 
gentlemen of landed estate. There were eighty witnesses for 
Mary Heath, eighty-six for her prosecutors. The Solicitor- 
General vainly protested that many of his principal witnesses 
and Mr. Mackercher were absent. The Court did not conceal 
its opinion that Mr. Mackercher could have been present if he 
pleased. 

The first witness was Mrs. Cole. She now proved herself 
to have been nine or ten years wrong in her estimate of her 
age at the trial of 1743, and in some details she 
varied from her former account of the afifair of the 
saucers. She was examined for two hours and a half, 
and it does not appear to us that her evidence was materially 
damaged. She was supported, we saw already, as to the 
strongest appearances of pregnancy in Lady Althani between 
November and January, 1714-1715, by Dr. Jemmat, President 
of the College of Physicians, and Mrs. Moncrieflfe, a midwife of 
great experience. They could not prove that Lady Altham 
was actually with child, but they proved that when Mary Heath 
said that her ladyship never showed any apparent symptoms of 
pregnancy Mary went too far. The rui'al witnesses were 
extremely vague and cautious — Eleanor Murphy and Mary 
Doyle, as we have said before, were discrepant about dates. 

Business really began in earnest when the Solicitor-General 
" with some satisfaction " called Mr. Higginson ; "he is a person 
of some reputation." Mr. Higginson was the collector of 
rents in 1715 for I^ord Anglesea. He swore, it will be 
remembered, that in mid-April, 1715, while Lord Altham was 
at the trial of Jacobites in Wexford, Lady Altham was at 
Dunmaine, near her confinement. Higgingson saw her, spoke 
with her, and drank a toast to her hajtpy delivery. 

The examination of Higginson must be quoted in full so that 
the reader, if he can understand the report, may form his own 
estimate C)f the value of the testimony.' 

The point is that Higginson's notebook shows him receiving 
rents at Peppard's Castle on 18th April, 1715, whereas he 
Bwore he was at Dunmaine, sixteen miles away, on that day. 
He explained the discrejiancy by his habit of pre-dating rents 

' See Appendix, pagea 348 and 354. 

67 



The Anncsley Case. 



on tlie days when they ought to be received and, when absent 
from home, leaving signed receipts. But he received a bill 
for £30 from Mr. Giffard on 5th April, and swore in the 
previous trial that he received it on Easter Monday, 18th April, 
1715, the day before he went to Dunmuine and saw Lady 
Altham. The value of his explanation of this discrepancy 
must be estimated by the reader. 

Lord Chief Justice Marlay in summing up said that Higgin- 
8on " would have been a material evidence if his memory did 
not fail him." Here the pamphleteer observes that the Lord 
Chief Justice should have given his reasons for his remark, 
for all who heard Mr. Higginson in both trials " are satisfied 
he has a surprising good memory." The pamphleteer defers 
further remark till Mai-y Heath's trial appears in print, and, 
as it is being edited by an Annesley, he "despairs of ever 
seeing it appear genuine." The Lord Chief Justice, after 
Higginson and another witness had l>een examined, cried, " If 
you have any person of undoubted credit, in the name of God 
produce him! " A cloud of witnesses of no particular credit 
was therefore scattered, and they came to Joan Laffan. 

The Recorder, for Mary Heath, told the Court that he would 
prove that the Althams never went to Mrs. Vice's lodgings in 
the end of 1713. He would show what servants, including Mi-s. 
Setwright, the housekeeper ; Mary Waters, a chambermaid ; 
and Betty Doyle, a laundrymaid, Lady Altham sent down 
before her from Briscoe's to Dunmaine. He would prove that 
in Easter week 1715, Lady Altham was not lying in, but was 
at Wexford Assizes, returning to Dunmaine on 22nd April, 
and was in Dublin at the King's birthday, 28th May. He 
would also disprove the god-parentage of the three alleged god- 
parents. Mrs. Pigot, for example, was never at Wexford 
County between November, 1714, and the end of 1716. Mr. 
Cliffe at the date of the alleged christening was in Dublin. 
Mr. Colclough was on bad terms with Lord Altham, and was 
a Catholic. All this, if proved, meant that the claimant's 
witnesses were perjured. 

The first witness was Mrs. Vice, daughter of Mrs. Vice who 
kept lodgings. In 1713 she was very young, only eleven. 
(It incidentally appears that the claimant was in Court during 
this examination.) Mrs. Vice knew that the Althams lodged 
with her mother about May, 1715; did not believe that they 
68 



Introduction. 

were there in 1713; did not know whether they were there 
in October, 1714, to January, 1715, the period of Dr. Jemmat's 
and Mrs. Moncrieffe's visits to Ladv Altham at Mrs. Vice's. 
At the first trial Mrs. Vice did not appear, " because I could 
not recollect any particular passages at that time." Her 
memory was later stimulated by the defendant's friends, who 
asked her about the fireworks at the birthday of George I., 
28th May, 1715. 

Mrs. Setwright swore to having been hired by Lady Altham 
as housekeeper at Captain Briscoe's four or five days before 
Christmas, 1713. She arrived at Dunmaine the day before 
Christmas Eve with Mary Waters and Betty Doyle. Rolph 
was butler. She remembered nothing about the saucers and 
their breaking, but was sure that Lady Altham had no mis- 
carriage. She herself had a child in June, 1714, in a house 
within a field's length from Dunmaine. She could not remem- 
ber Lady Altham's absence from Dunmaine in November- 
December, 1711. She never told the Rev. Mr. Nesbit, of 
St. Catherine's, that " if Mrs. Heath swore that my lady 
never had a child she was a damned bitch." The Court ob- 
served that the question was not " Had Lady Altham ever a 
cliild?" but "Had she a child while Mary Heath was with 
her?" 

The next witness was " an ancient man " in bad health, 
the Rev. Mr. Hervey, of County Wexford. He was in Court 
at the Wexford Assizes of 16th and 22nd April, 1715, and 
was a particular friend of the judge. Lord Chief Justice Forster, 
wliose brother had been his tutor at college. Here, at least, 
wc have an educated witness. lie saw Lord Altham both at 
his lodgings and in Court. There were several ladies in Court.' 

Whatever the value of this evidence may be in point of law, 
in point of history it seems, if uncontradicted, to leave no doulit 
that Mrs. Giffard, as she swore, was at these assizes, and was 
acromjianied by a lady of fashion, aliout whom Mr. Hervoy was 
" morally certain " that her name was Lady Altham, and that 
she was a comjjromising companion for his sister-in-law, Mrs. 
Giffard. 

Eklward Bouik, who had been postilion to Lord Altham, 
corroborated Mrs. Setwright on many points, and entirely 



Soc Ajipfiulix. y)Bge8 .354-357. 

69 



The Annesley Case. 

corroborated Mr. Hervey. He was among the party who 
beat the informer or King's evidence Sinclare ; he never 
saw a child at Dunmaine House ; he waited on Lady Altham 
at Ross after the separation ; she was very fond of children, 
but had none of her own while he was with her. His memory 
on points which he was not brought to swear to was incredibly 
weak. He could not remember whether or not after leaving 
Lord Altham's service in 1715 he returned to it again! 

Did anybody offer you money for swearing in this cause? — Yes, Mr. 
Mackercher did. 

What did he offer you?— He offered me £300 for ewearing. 

This came out under cross-examination. " When the witness said 
this, there was a loud huzza in Court." 

Apparently the claimant's cause was now unpopular. 

The money, in fact, was offered by Paul Keating, whom we 
have met offering money to the boy Egglestone as from Lord 
Anglesea.i This witness swore that he had met Mr. Mac- 
kercher in I7i3, apparently; but Mr. Mackercher offered no 
money, merely saying, " I hope, my friend, you will do nothing 
against Mr. Annesley's interest." Thus we do not certainly 
know that Mackercher employed Keating to offer £300. Keat- 
ing may have been acting to discredit Mackercher in case he 
swore for the claimant; or Bouik might have been bought by 
the defendant's party. In any case, take him for what he ia 
worth, he fully corroborated Mr. Hervey as to the Wexford 
Assizes. We must now refer, on the same point, to Mrs. Sarah 
Sweeny, at whose house, as Mrs. Giffard swore in the previous 
trial, the Altham's lodged, at Wexford, in April, 1715 ^ 

Mrs. Giffard next swore to the same effect as in the former 
trial. She had, at that time, forgotten that her married sister 
went with her to the assizes. She still swore that Mr. Col- 
clough sat by Lady Altham in Court, and believed that he 
handed her in and out of Court; " to the best of my knowledge 
he did." 

On this point Mr. Colclough was adamant. He did no such 
thing. 

We have from Mrs. Sweeny corroboration of Mr. Hervey's 
evidence, in which the only weakness is that he did not know 



1 See Keating's evidence. State Trials, xvii. 1124-1125. 
» See Appendix, pages 357-360. 
70 



Introduction. 

Lady Altham personally, and learned her identity, when he saw 
her in Court, in 1715, from the public voice. Mrs. Sweeny 
was unshaken and very cool ; we have nothing against her ex- 
cept that, in IT-IS, she remembered nothing of the matter, 
"but after, when I considered about it, I found it out." 
Her sister, Mrs. Giffard, may have assisted her memory, but 
she must have tried to do that vainly before the fii'st trial. 
Mr. Hervey had been in Lord Altham's rooms at Mrs. Sweeny's. 

The Court, very impatient, did not even think it necessary to 
produce Mrs. Giffard's sister, Mrs. Crumpton by a second 
marriage, Mrs. Roe in 1715. She therefore was not called. 
Why she and Mr. Hervey were not called, or did not appear, 
in the earlier trial is unknown. But, till we can disable Mr. 
Hervey's evidence, it is manifest that Lady Altham's presence 
at the Wexford Assizes in the very week when Higginson saw 
her, great with child, at Dunmaine, in April, 1715, seems to 
settle the historical question, "James Annesley " was not 
the son of Lord and Lady Altham. Yet, later, we produce 
affidavits which flatly contradict Mr. Hervey ! 

If the oath of Sarah Weedon, mother of John and Edward 
Weedon, be of any avail, assurance is' ledoubled. But she did 
not remember the saucers, did not remember that Lady Altham 
had any illness, despite the fortnight's attendance of Sutton 
on her in 1714. She had known Joan Landy's child from his 
birth, and at Carrickduff with Lord Altham. During Sarah's 
evidence the Court said, " Mr. Mackercher has made an affi- 
davit which I wish for his sake he had not." 

Under cross-examination Sarah oidy opined that she was 
still in Dunmaino House when the Briscoes left it in 1714. Not 
much was to be got out of Sarah for the claimant, and the 
Court, in milder mood, said that, as to Mi'. Mackercher's affi- 
davit about Sarah as a witness for his case, " Mr. Mackercher 
was certainly misinformed." 

They now came to the question of the alleged god-parents. 
First, as to Mr. Cliffe, they were to prove that he was not in 
Dunmaine at a christening in May, 1715. But Mr. Cliffe, the 
son, had left the Court, as the hour was late, and they trie<l to 
prove an alibi for the god -mother, Mrs. Pigot. We give the 
evidence toxtually.' 



' See Appendix, pages 360-t"W4. 

71 



The Annesley Case. 

The evidence in the Apjiendix bears that Mr. Caesar Col- 
clough was with the broken-logged Mr. Pigot and his wife, 
the alleged god-mother of the claimant, in the spring of 1715 ; 
and it had been already sworn that Mrs. Pigot did not return 
to county Wexford in that year. 

Against all this, and against the evidence about Wexford 
Assizes, Mr. Caesar Colclough bore testimony.' 

Mr. Colclough seems to disjiose of the Walsh evidence in the 
Appendix, but Lord Chief Justice Marlay preferred to Mr. 
Colclough' 8 the testimony of Penelope Halpen (see Appendix), 
"who, if she swears the truth, cannot be mistaken." 

Somebody was mistaken ! If Mr. Colclough were right, Walsh 
was not a servant in Mrs. Pigot's family in April, 1715. If 
Penelope were right, Walsh, whom she calls Wallace, was in 
Mrs. Pigot's family, and with her contemi)lated the eclipse of 
22nd April, 1715. As to the absence of Mr. Cliffe, alleged 
godfather of the claimant, from Wexford and Dunmaine, at the 
time of the alleged christening of the claimant in May, 1715, 
we must quote in the Appendix the whole evidence of Mr. 
Cliffe's son, John Cliffe.^ 

It is clear that there is no proof of Mr. ClifEe's presence in 
Dublin between 14th May and Slst May, 1715. Thus there was 
time for Mr. Cliffe to be at a christening at Dunmaine in that 
period. Complete proof of an alibi for the " gossips," the 
god-parents, as regards the christening was not produced. 

Finally, as to Lady Altham's presence at or absence from the 
Wexford Assizes of 16th-22nd April, 1715, Mr. Masterson, one 
of the gentlemen acquitted of Jacobite practices, was produced 
for the claimant. We give in the Appendix his evidence. 3 

The Court sat continuously for twenty-two hours, " without 
refreshment." The temper of the Court was, pardonably, as 
short as the sitting was long. Lord Chief Justice Marlay told 
the jury that the evidence against the accused, Mai-y Heath, 
" ought to be so full, clear, and consistent that there can be 
no room to doubt the truth of what is offered to prove." He 
said that records proved Mr. Cliffe to have been in Dublin at 
the alleged date of the christening (which does not seem certain), 
and he seemed to take Penelope Halpen's word against that of 



See Appendix, pages 364, .366. "^ See Appendix, pages 366, 367. 

*See Appendix, pages 370, 371. 
72 



Introduction. 

Mr. Colclough concerning Mrs. Pigot's presence in Tipperary 
during the alleged christening. No positive evidences for the 
claimant's birth, and Joan Laffan's evidence, " are in the 
least to be credited — if you believe the opposite evidence of 
Mrs. Setwright, Mrs. Giffard, and Sarah Weedon." 

In twenty minutes the jury brought in the verdict for Mary 
Heath, — Not Guilty. 



Two Unpublished Affidavits. 

I now, to make all clear, produce two hithei'to unpublished 
affidavits by gentlemen for the claimant. 

Add. Ms. 33054 ff 266-270 (Affidavits upon the Petition of James 
Annesley Esq. to His Majesty). 

Thomas Sandford of Sandford Court in Co Wexford Esq. aged 60 
or thereabouts maketh oath. That in the year 1715, he was High 
SherifT of the County of Kilkenny and that in the latter end of April 
in the year aforesaid, he the deponent accompanied the then going 
judge of Assise from the city of Kilkenny to the town of New Ross in 
the County of Wexford & there met one Mr Toplady who was then 
High Sheriff of the Co of Wexford ; and this deponent saith that 
he there dined with the judges, said High Sheriff, Aaron Lambert 
of the Co of Wexford Esq, & several other gentlemen, at the house 
of William Napper as this deponent believes. And that during the 
said entertainment, one of the then judges asked some of the said 
company whether Lord Altham would be at Wexford Assizes, upon 
which some of the eaid company then replyed and told his Lordship 
that they believed not. For that Lady Altham was then ready, or 
near lying in, or word."; to that effect. And this deponent further 
saith that he continued for some time after in the said town of New 
Ro.sH, & that a messenger came from Dunmain the seat of the Rt Hon. 
Arthur Lord Altham to the town of New Ross aforesd. giving an 
account that Lady Altham was delivered of a eon. On which news 
there were great rejoicings & other demonstrations of joy in the said 
town of New Ross. And this deponent further saith that he was 
intimately acquainted with said Arthur Lord Altham and that in 
some short time after this Depont & Aaron Lambert aforesd. were 
in company with said Lord Altham & wished his Lordship joy on 
the birth of his son. And his lop. thanked this deponent & said 
Lambert, & was very much overjoyed on his having an heir, & seemed 
well pleased at this Deponent & Lambert's drinking the young peer's 
health. And this dept. further saith that the roinmon repute of the 
inhabitants of the town of Ross aforesaid was that Lady Altliam had 
been delivered of a wm at Dunmain in the Co. of Wexford aforesaid 
signed. Thomas Sandfoud. 

Sworn 19»h A[>ril 1746. 

73 



The Annesley Case. 

(Add. Ms. 33054 f. 270.) 
(Slightly abridged.) 

Claudius Malbrank White of Rossbercon Co. Kilkenny, gentlemaa 
aged forty-six years came this day before me & made oath That he 
was well acquainted with Arthur lato Lord Altham and Mary Lady 
Altham his wife, during their residence at Duimiain Co. Wexford, 
this depont tlien living with his uncle Capt. Prichard Butler of New 
Ross in the said County, with whom and his aunt Mrs. Butler, Lord 
and Lady Altham had great intimacy. In the spring of 1715 it was 
publicly talked of in New Ro.ss & neighbourhood that Lady Altham 
was with child, & she appeared to this deponent to be so. He par- 
ticular remembers that he was sent by his uncle, some time in the 
latter end of the spring or the beginning of the summer in 1715 to 
Dunmain to see j\Irs Butler who had been there for some time on a 
visit to Lady Altham who expected soon to be delivered. When he 
was there Mrs Butler desired him to tell his uncle that Lady Altham 
was safely delivered of a fine boy. And further deposeth that there 
were great rejoicings at Dunmain, & at the paid Richard Butler's, & 
all about the town of New Ross among Lord Altham's tenant.s & 
friends on account of the said birth. 

Some time after Mrs Butler having sent for a horse kept for her use, 
the deponent was sent to Dunmain to bring her home, & at Dunmain 
saw the said child of Ix)rd & Lady Altham. And he afterwards heard 
of the christening of the child & that he was called Jame.^. The 
deponent was frequently sent by his Uncle Richard Butler & his wife 
to Dunmain to inquire after Ld. & )y. Altham & i\lr. Annesley ; & 
when he went there on such occasions frequently saw the child, some- 
times with Lord & Lady Altham. who seemed extremely fond of him 
& treated him as their legitimate son ; and at other time.« in the care 
of Mary Heath, my Lady's woman, & of his nur.se, who both treated 
him with the greatest respect and fondness. That about a year & 
a half, or two years after the birth of the said child, Lord & Lady 
Altham having parted on account of some misunderstanding between 
them. Lady Altham came from Dunmain together with the said Mary 
Heath to the houpe of Richard Butler at New Ross where they con 
tinued for about 2 or 3 months. During which time the deponent 
often saw Lady Altham in tears, bewailing her misfortune and above 
all the loss of her child, complaining bitterly of her husband's bar- 
barity in not Buffering her to take the child with her. And depont. 
saw the child several times brought by stealth to Lady Altham while 
she continued at the house of Capt. Butler: and she alway.s on those 
occasions appeared extremely tender & fond of him & cried over iiim ; 
Lady Altham continued at New Ro.ss about 4 or 5 years after her 
separation. And he further saith, that when the child was about 5 
or 6 years old, Lor<i Altham frequently brought him to New Ross, 
& depont. used on such occa.'^ions to attend the child and walk with 
him about the town of New Ross, & into the neighbcjurs' house.?, in 
all which he was treated with great respect : and particularly remembers 
he several times went with said child to the house of Mr. William 
Napper of New Ross who alway.s treated the child as the legitimate 

74 



Introduction. 

son & apparent heir of Lord & Lady Altham. This depont. some- 
times brought the child by stealth to Lady Altham at her lodgings in 
the house of one Mrs. Grubb for which her Ladyship was extremely 
thankful to this deponent, & rejoiced greatly at the sight of the child 
& treated him with the fondness of a tender mother. And further 
deposeth that this depont. always understood that the youth was the 
legitimate son of Lord & Lady Altham, and he was generally esteemed 
& reputed to be so by all the people, the depont. conversed with at 
New Ross & the neighbourhood thereof & he never heard anything 
to the contrary till of late. Further he deposeth that about the 
month of September 1744 this depont. saw James Annesley esq. this 
petitioner at New Ross with several other gentlemen, and depont. 
immediately knew him to be the very same person whom depont. 
had so often seen when a youth of 5 or 6 years old at New Ross. 

Signed Claudius Malbrank White. 

Sworn before me at Tintern 
in the County of Wexford the 13th 
day of May 1746. 
i know the Dept. Ambr : Oriell. 

After perusing these affidavits I find myself quite unable to 
frame any hypothesis which will explain them if they are 
untrue. You cannot believe that the gentlemen are perjuring 
themselves with circumstance ; they were not bribed. Mr. 
Mackercher, in 1746, was practically ruined. Smollett has 
assured us in The lie proof, line VZH, note to "the melting 
Scot " — " Daniel Mackercher, a man of such primitive sim- 
plicity that he may be said to have exceeded the Scriptural 
injunction by not only parting with coat and cloak, but with his 
shirt also to relieve a brother in distres.s, James Annesley, 
Esq." 

Had the deponents been men ready to hazard their immortal 
souls for a bribe, Mackercher had none to offer. The potenti- 
alities of bribery were on the side of the Annesley combination. 
Yet certain I am that they did not by money obtain the evidence 
of the Rev. Mr. Ilervey. 

Conclusion. 

When we contemplate this lamentable case our judgment 
wavers. Take the gross improi;ability that Lady Altliam 
should not inform her natural father, the Duke of Huckingliam, 
of the birth of her child, and tliat, if she did, he should take 
no steps in the way of acknowledgment. Against this improb- 
ability remember that Lady Altham's character was terribly 

75 



The Annesley Case. 



smirched. The proceedings against her for divorce in 1709- 
1713, are only mentioned by Smollett, but a rumour ran that 
she had a child, not by her lord, in Holland, also that she had 
a child (or that child) " by one Segrave." " Neighbours of 
quality," ladies, did not call much on Lady Altham at Dun- 
maine. The Palliser afifair, as Lord Altham was never legally 
attacked about it, was infragrant; her ladyship, we may guess, 
had long been a plague to the Duke of Buckingham, who, when 
she left her husband, made her only a pension of £20 yearly. 
In Dublin she could not take the child from her liusband ; she 
was poor, paralysed, deserted, and, some four months after 
her husband's death, the child was transported, by some was 
believed to be dead. She had not the money, even it she had 
the energy, to set research for him afoot. 

These considerations tend to lighten the improbabilities. 

Again, it does not appear that, if the child was legitimate, 
his father, desperately needy in 1725-1727, could have made 
much in the way of raising funds by asserting the legitimacy. 
The boy was too young, the father haggled with his brother 
about joining to raise money on reversions, now expecting 
success, now disappointed. According to Smollett, who is 
quite untrustworthy, Captain Annesley induced his brother to 
report that the child was dead while he was really immured at 
the house of the captain's led man, Cavanagh, the dancing 
master. But no such matter appears in the evidence as to 
this Cavanagh. 1 But it is not impossible that the besotted 
Lord Altham in his last days went on wavering till death took 
him intestate. 

As to the infamies of his brother, the defendant, we have 
seen that, in such a character as his was,, they do not raise a 
strong presumption that he knew his nephew to be legitimate. 
He acted as if he believed in it, but it was his nature to take 
the most wicked, cruel, and foolish course that was open to 
him. 

It is probable, in the writer's opinion, that Mrs. Cole did 
not perjure herself about the miscarriage of spring, 1714, and 
it is probable that Mary Heath was carried too far by her 
zeal and her desire to deny everything, including Lady Altham's 
appearance of approaching maternity from September, 1714, 



Seepages 131-136. 
76 



Introduction. 

to January, 1715. It is almost inconceivable that Mrs. Cole 
was bribed to invent and swear to a statement which was only 
material as affecting, on a single point, the veracity of Mary 
Heath. It is almost impossible to suppose that the evidence 
of Seneschal Turner for the claimant was perjured, despite 
his bad memory for dates, and it is equally difficult to suppose 
that the evidence of ]\Ir. Thomas Palliser for the defendant was 
perjured. 

If one were obliged to stake one's all on a decision one might 
give it for the defendant on the strength of the evidence of the 
Rev. Mr. Hervey as to Lady Altham's presence at the Wexford 
Assizes in April, 1715. 

On the other hand. Major Fitzgerald's evidence admits of 
no explanation. Granting that Lord Altham merely played a 
practical joke, we can find no new-born child within his reach. 
Joan Landy's child was far too old, and the only other con- 
ceivable infant born near Dunmaine House was Mrs. Set- 
wright's. As it saw the light in June, 1715, according to 
its mother, it was not available for the purpose of the joke 
either in April, 1715, or in September of the same year.i the 
major's preferred date. The fact that a new-born child was 
presented to him at Dunmaine was proved by his recognition 
of Mary Doyle. 

Every reader who is interested in judicial puzzles will study 
the report of the trial of 1743 presented in this volume, and 
will go on to attack the other trials as given in State Trials, 
carrying with him the knowledge that all these records are, in 
places, untrustworthy. He will then, if he can, make up his 
mind as to whether the claimant was or was not the son of 
Lord and Lady Altham, or, at all events, of Lady Altham 
living under her husband's roof. There is no suggestion in 
the records that while at Dunmaine she had any lover before 
the birth of her child in April-May, 1715, if a child at thot 
date she had. 

Tlic writer began to study the proljlem with what he thought 
an almost invincible prejudice against the cause of the claimant 
and against the sincerity of Mr. Mackercher. The claimant 
was too romantic ; Mr. Mackercher, as presented by Mr. 
Smollett, was too SmoUettian. These two prejudices were, to 



1 State Trials, xviii. 147. 

77 



The Annesley Case. 



A g:reat extent, dissipated by a minute study of the case. It 
became apparent, by the medical evidence in the trial of 
Mary Heath, that Mary Heath was not consistently telling the 
truth. Certainly, on that medical evidence Lady Altham in the 
last months of 1714 did exhibit signs of pregnancy; whether 
they wore fallacious (as happens occasionally) or not, these 
symptoms were exhibited. Mary denied that there were any 
such symptoms ; she so far perjured herself. 

It became certain, and definitely certain on the discovery of 
the affidavits of Mr. Sandford and Mr. Malbrank White, that 
in the spring or earliest summer of 1715 Lord Altham publicly 
announced the birth of a child to himself and Lady Altham. 
It followed that all the people of Dunmaine, and especially 
Mary Heath, who denied that there was ever any such report, 
were in error, whether wittingly or unwittingly. No known 
motive could explain the evidence, if false, of Major Fitz- 
gerald, Mr. Sandford, and Mr. Malbrank White. No theory 
that Lord Altham was attempting, in 1715, to introduce a 
" warming-pan Pretender," a suppositious heir, could hold 
water, especially if the witnesses of the defendant were to be 
credited, and if they were not to be credited the defendant had 
no case. If any such attempt were made by Lord Altham, 
the witnesses for the defendant should have said as much, but 
they denied everything, every appearance of pregnancy in 
Lady Altham, eveiy report of the birth of a child. Now, 
there was appearance of pregnancy in Lady Altham ; there was 
Lord Altham's often-repeated assertion that she had a child ; 
there was the unshaken statement of Lutwich that he saw 
and made shoes for the child after the separation, and there 
is the affidavit of Mr. Malbrank White, who, however, was not 
cross-examined. 

If suborned perjury there were, it is clear that the potentiali- 
ties of subornation and the weight of influence of every kind 
were all on the side of the defendant, the Eail of Anglesea, 
and the Annesley confederacy. In 1746, when Mr. Sandford 
and Mr. Malbrank White swore to their affidavits, Mr. Mac- 
kercher's pecuniaiy means were exhausted. Reflection on all 
these circumstances leaves me, for one, destitute of any fixed 
opinion. 



78 



Introduction. 

The later fortunes of the claimant are briefly narrated thus : 
James Annesley, Esq., died 5th Januarj^ 1760. He was twice 
married ; first, to a daughter of Mr. Chester, at Staines Bridge, 
in Middlesex, by whom he had one son and two daughters. 
The son, James Annesley, Esq., died November, 1763, S.P., 
and the eldest daughter is married to Charles Wheeler, Esq., 
son of the late Captain Wheeler, in the Guinea trade. Secondly, 
Mr. Annesley married a daughter of Sir Thomas F Anson of 
Bounds, near Tunbridge, in Kent, gentleman -porter of the 
Tower, by whom he had a daughter and a son, who are both 
dead; the son, aged about seven years, died about the beginning 
of 1764, and the daughter, aged about twelve, died in May, 
1765. 



79 



Leading Dates in the Annesley Case. 



1706— 21st July. 
1709— 

171 3 — November. 

December. 

171 4 — March-April. 
April-May. 

June-July. 

Ist August. 
November. 

1715—16/22 April. 

22nd April. 
April-May. 



May. 
September. 

1716 — February. 
1718— 



Marriage of Lord and Lady Altham. 

Lord Altham goes to Ireland, leaving his 
wife in England. 

Reconciliation of Lady Altham and her 
husband. 

Lord and Lady Altham take up house at 
Dunmaine. 

Birth of Joau Landy's child. 

Alleged first miscarriage of Lady Altham 
at Dunmaine. 

Alleged second miscarriage at Mrs. Vice's 

lodgings. 

Death of Queen Anne. 

Alleged appearance at Mrs. Vice's of Lady 
Altham's third pregnancy. 

Wexford Assizes, at which Lady Altham is 
alleged by defendant's witnesses to 
have attended. 

Eclipse of the sun. 

Alleged birth of the claimant, James 
Annesley, at Dunmaine ; the child 
sent to be nursed by Joan Landy the 
following month. 

Alleged christening of the child at Dun- 
maine. 

According to Major Fitzgerald he is shown 
the child by Lord Altham at Dun- 
maine the day after its birth. 

Joan Laffan engaged as dry-nurse for the 
child in the autumn. 

Quan-el between Lord and Lady Altham 
regarding the Palli.ser incident; Lady 
Altham leaves Dunmaine. 

Lord Altham leaves Dunmaine with the 
boy to live at Kinnea. 

8i 



The Annesley Case. 



1722— February. The boy turned out of Lord Altham's 

house in Dublin by his mistress, Miss 
Gregory. 

1724— Aug. -Sept. Lady Altham goes to England, 

17 27—1 6th Nov. Death of Lord Altham. 

1728 — 30th April. The boy alleged to have been kidnapped 

by his uncle, Lord Anglesea, and 
shipped to America to be sold as a 
slave. 

1729 — October. Death of Lady Altham. 

1741— 12th Feb. Claimant reported to be on Admiral 

Vernon's ship Falmouth. 

Sept. -Oct. Claimant returns to England. 

1 742—1 st May. Claimant accidentally shoots Thomas Eggle- 

stone at Staines. 
15th July. Claimant tried ^t Old Bailey for murder, 

and acquitted. 

1743 — 16th Sept. Lord Anglesea and others assault the 

claimant and his supporters at Cur- 
ragh Races. 

ll/25th Nov. Trial for recovery of the estates before the 
Court of Exchequer, Dublin ; verdict 
for the claimant. 

1744 — 3rd August. Lord Anglesea and others tried and con- 
victed at Athy, in Kildare, for an 
assault upon the claimant and his 
supporters at Curragh Races. 

1745 — 8th Feb. Trial of Mary Heath for perjury before 

the Court of King's Bench, Dublin ; 
verdict of acquittal. 



82 



THE 

TRIAL m EJECTMENT 

BETWEEN 

CAMPBELL CRAIG, Lessee o£ James Annesley, Esq., — 

Plaintiff ; 

AND 

The Right Honourable RICHARD, EARL OF ANGLESEA,- 

Defendant. 



Judges — 

Lord Chief Baron Bowes. 

The Hon, Mr. Baron Mounteney. 

The Hon. Mr. Baron Dawson. 

Counsel for the Plaintiff — 

Robert Marshall, Esq., Second Serjeant. 

Philip Tisdall, Esq., Third Serjeant. 

Philip Walsh, Esq., one of His Majesty's Council at Law. 



William Harward, Esq. 
Joseph Robbins, Esq. 
Ambrose Harding, Esq. 
Harry Smith, Esq. 
John Fitzgibbon, Esq. 



John Forbes, Esq. 
Thomas Morgan, Esq. 
Jonathan Belcher, Esq. 
Robert Fitzgerald, Esq. 
Thomas Lill, Esq. 



Counsel for the Defendant — 

Anthony Malone, Esq., Prime Serjeant. 

St. George Caulfield, Esq., Attorney-General. 

Warden Flood, Esq., Solicitor-General. 

Eaton Stannard, Esq., Recorder of Dublin. 

John Smith, Esq., One of ills Majesty's Council at Law. 

Anthony Marlay, Esq., One of His Majesty's Council at Law. 



Richard Malonb, Esq. 
Peter Daly, E.sq. 
Ignatius {Iushey, Esq. 
Simon Bradstreet, Esq 



Thomas Lehunt, Esq. 
Francis Blake, Esq. 
EnwARi) Lke, Esq. 
James Mauuox, Esq. 
Thomas Houghton, Esq. 

83 



The Annesley Case. 

Friday, nth November, 1743. 

The Court being sat, tlie Jury were called over and answered to 
their names, of whom the following twelve were sworn to try the issue 
joined between the parties : — 



Sir Thomas Taylor, Bart. 

Rt. Hon. William Graham, Esq. 

Richard Wesley, Esq. 

Hercules Langford Rowley, Esq. 

Richard Gorges, Esq. 

John Preston, Esq. 



Nathaniel Preston, Esq. 
Charles Hamilton, Esq. 
Clotworthy Wade, Esq. 
Thomas Shaw, Esq. 
Gorges Lowther, Esq. 
Joseph Asbe, Esq. 



The Declaration. 



Campbell Craig, Lessee of James Annesley, Esq., — Plaintiff; 

The Right Honourable Richard Earl of Anqlbsba, — Defendant. 

Michaelmas Term, in the 16th and 17th years of George the 

Second, in the Exchequer. 

County of MsATH^iThe Plaintiff declares that James Annesley, 
to wit, /Esq., on the First Day of May, 1742, at 

Trim, in the County of Meath, demised to the said Campbell 
Craig 30 messuages, 30 tofts, 50 cottages, 2 mills, 50 gardens, 
800 acres of arable land, 300 acres of meadow, 600 acres of 
pasture, 50 acres of furze, and heathy ground, 50 acres of 
moory land, with the appurtenances, in Great Stramine, other- 
wise Stameen, Little Stramine, otherwise Stameen, Little 
Donacarney, Shallon, Kilcarvan, otherwise Kilsharvan, Cruffey, 
Annagor, otherwise Annager, and Little Gaffney, Scituate, 
lying, and being in the County of Meath aforesaid. All which 
said premisses were formerly the estate of the Right Honourable 
James Earl of Anglesea, deceased, and lately the estate of the 
Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesea, also deceased. To 
hold the said demised premises with the appurtenances to the 
said Campbell Craig, his executors, administrators, and assigns, 
from the let day of May aforesaid, for the term of twenty-one 
84 



The Declaration. 

jears from thence next ensuing fully to be compleated and 
ended. 

The plaintiff also declares upon two other several demises 
made by his said lessor of the same premises, that is to say, 
one by the name of the Right Honourable James Earl of 
Anglesea, and the other by the name of the Honourable James 
Annesley, only son and heir of Arthur, late Baron of Altham, 
deceased, otherwise the Right Honourable James Baron Altham 
of Altham. By virtue of which said several demises, the said 
Campbell Craig, on the 2nd day of May aforesaid, in the year 
of our Lord aforesaid, entered and was thereof possessed, until 
the aforesaid Richard Earl of Anglesea afterwards, on the 3rd 
day of May aforesaid, in the year of our Lord aforesaid, with 
force and arms and so forth, entered into the said demised 
premises with the appurtenances, and ejected, expelled, and 
removed him the said Craig from his said farm (his said term 
not being then or since determined), and otherwise did unto 
him, against the peace of our Lord the King that now is, and 
to the damage of the said Craig One hundred pounds sterl. 

To this declaration the defender pleaded the general issue, 
not guilty. 



85 



Evidence for the Plaintiff. 

Mr. Serjeant Marshall opened for the plaintiff. 

o. Briscoe Mrs. Dorothy Briscoe, examined — I first knew Lady Altham 
in October, 1713, when she came over to Ireland and lodged 
at my father's house in Bride Street, Dublin. My father's 
name -was Temple Briscoe. I lived in the house with Lady 
Altham for about six weeks, and was every day in her com- 
pany. I believe she was not then with child, she having then 
come to Ireland to be reconciled to her husband, who had 
turned her off. After Lady Altham left my father's house 
she went to Mrs. Vice's house, in Temple Bar, near the Slip. 
I was with Lady Altham there after her husband came to 
Dublin and was reconciled to her. 

Cross-examined — I knew they were reconciled at my father's 
house, because my father having invited Lord Altham to supper, 
they spoke about Lady Altham, and on such discourse he 
then desired to see his wife. Whereupon my mother brought 
Lady Altham downstairs. Lord Altham kissed his wife, and 
they supped together, I also supping with them. After supper 
Lord and Lady Altham went to bed together. I saw them in 
bed. Afterwards they went to Mrs. Vice's house, and stayed 
there some few days. Then they went together to Dunmaine, 
and soon afterwards they invited my father and mother down 
there. I saw Lady Altham in Dublin in the latter end of 
the summer of 1714. Lord Altham came with her, and they 
lodged at Mrs. Vice's house. I understood they cohabited 
there, as I often saw them together. I knew nothing as to 
Lady Altham being pregnant there or anywhere else save from 
what I heard my mother say. 

The Attouney-General objected to the witness giving an 
account of what she had heard her mother say. 
The objection was allowed. 



H. Cole Mrs. Henrietta Cole, examined — I knew the late Lord 
Altham and his lady in 1713 by a reconciliation being made 
between them at the house of my father, Temple Briscoe. 
Some time about Christmas they lodged for four or five days 

86 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

at my father's house, and then thev went to lodge at Mrs. H. Cole 
Vice's, at Temple Bar. I observed them to live comfortably. 
I saw Lady Altham at Temple Bar. She and her husband 
went to Dunmaine about Christmas. My mother and T, being 
invited to Dunmaine, went there about the spring of 1714. 
While I Avas there Lady Altham was with child, but she 
received a fright and miscarried. The fright was occasioned 
by my lord's being in a great rage at some saucers being 
brought to the table- contrary to his express orders, upon 
which he threw the saucers into the chimney just by my lady, 
who was seated at the upper end of the table. I lay with my 
mother. During the night of that day my mother was called 
up by Mary Heath, her ladyship's woman, who told her that 
Lady Altham was exceedingly ill, and desired her to come. 
Lady Altham miscarried that night. I saw the abortion in a 
basin next morning. Mary Heath must also have seen it, 
because she was present. My mother said that, if Lady 
Altham was so easily frightened, she never would have a child. 
Lord Altham said it Avas her own fault. My mother is dead. 
I saw Lady Altham in Dublin, I think, the winter after, but 
I did not know about her pregnancy then. 

Cross-examined — I am about forty-five years old. I do not 
remember who were the servants who were at Dunmaine. 

Being so young, how did you know it to be an abortion? — 
I heard it from my mother. 

What kind of saucers were thrown? — They were china 
saucers, with odd kinds of figures on them. Lord Altham bad 
them before he was married, and ordered them not to be 
brought to table. My mother and I Avere at table, and I sat 
on her ladyship's right hand. The butler's name was Rolph. 
To the best of my knowledge, he was present, and brought the 
saucers in for the second course. 

What words did Lord Altham use when he threw the saucei's? 
— He said, " These saucers, you know, I ordered never to be 
brought upon the table," and thereupon Lady Altham fell into 
a most violent fit of tears. I believe that she Avent to bed at 
her usual time. I do not remember any physicians or midAvifo 
being called in. Lord Altham afterwards said to my mother 
that it was liis lady's OAvn fault that she liad miscarried. 

Alice Bates, examined — I kncAv Lady Altham at Captain Alice Bates 
Briscoe's liouse in Bride Street in 1713, and at her lodging at 
Mrs. Vice's, in Essex Street, in November, 1714. She was 
then Avith child. I went to pay her a visit, and Avhcn I came 
to the dining-room door Lord Altliani met mc, and slapt me 
on the back and said, "By God, Ally, Moll's witli child." T 
also knew her to bo with child by seeing her pretty big. I 

«7 



The Annesley Case. 



Alle* Bates wished her joy on being with child, and she thanked me in 
presence of his lordship. I saw her two or three times after 
that before she went out of town, about Christmas, 1714, and 
I spoke to her of it. She always owned it. I saw her growing 
bigger, and laid my hand upon her, but I did not perceive 
any motion, because my hand was outside her clothes. Her 
lady's woman, Mrs. Heath, was about her then, and 
certainly knew she was with child, but I never spoke to her 
about it except in a joking way. I was married at that time, 
my husband being a revenue officer, and now a schoolmaster. 

Cross-examined — I cannot tell what became of that preg- 
nancy. I waited on Mrs. Briscoe, and I attended there 
sometimes on Lady Altham. 

Of what size was Lady Altham, and of what colour was her 
hair? — She was a middle-sized woman, and her hair was very 
dark brown. 

Did Mrs. Briscoe go to Dunmaine? — It was in November, 
1714, that I saw my lady with child, and it was in the May 
before that Mrs. Briscoe went down along with one of her 
daughters, Harriet. 

How old was that daughter — was she marriageable? She 
was, and as big as she is now. The first time I saw Lady 
Altham with child the days were short and the weather was 
dirty. I saw her about three times at my master's and at her 
lodgings. 

Was not Lady Altham very conversant in Briscoe's family T 
—Yes. 

Were they not very glad to hear she was with child? — Yes. 

Did you ever hea'* it mentioned and talked of in the family? 
— Yes. Captain Briscoe had five daughters. I could not tell 
which of them were at home when Mrs. Briscoe went to 
Dunmaine. Miss Harriett (Mrs. Cole) was in the country 
with Lady Altham. I heard my mistress and Mrs. Cole say 
that Lady Altham miscarried in Dunmaine. I also heard Mrs. 
Cole say so. 

Catharine Cathakinb MacCormick, examined — I knew Lord and Lady 

Altham when he lodged at Mrs. Vice's in Essex Street, where 
I was servant about the end of summer in the year before 
Queen Anne died. My lord was there some time before one 
Bryan MacCormack, his footman, came for my lord's slippers, 
nightcap, and nightgown, and said he believed his lordship 
would lie at Captain Briscoe's house. There was a rumour at 
first that my lord was to be married to one of Captain Briscoe's 
daughters, but the next morning the footman came and told 
me that the servants told him that Lady Altham had come to 
88 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

town. They came next morning to lodge -with my mistress, Catharine 

and stayed that winter. They went to Dunmaine from my ** ''" * 

mistress's house, and about the end of May or beginning of 

June following they came from the country to Mrs. Vice's the 

second time. There was some talk in the family at Mrs. Vice's 

of a miscarriage at Dunmaine. One evening in August, my 

lord having words with my lady's woman, Mrs. Heath, made a 

great noise, upon which my lady, who was in bed, was 

frightened and screamed out. Next morning they said that my 

lady had miscarried, or was going to miscarry, whereupon my 

lord sent one of the servants for Mrs. Lucas, a midwife in the 

neighbourhood. I desired the man not to go, but to say he 

went. When he came back Lord Altham was so displeased 

that he threw up the dining-room window and called Mrs. 

Lucas several times. Another midwife, Mrs. Lawler, was sent 

for next morning. Lady Altham miscarried about six weeks 

after her coming to Mrs. Vice's. I heard it from Mrs. Heath, 

her woman, who said that her ladyship would be as fruitful 

a woman as any, but for her ill-usage. About two months 

after I heard that Lady Altham was again with child. I was 

told so by Mrs. Heath, who mentioned to me, with a great 

deal of pleasure, that she had good news, that my lady was 

certainly with child again. That would be in October or 

November. There were great changes for the better in my 

lord upon my lady's being with child again. He used to come 

home earlier than usual, and a pair of low-heeled slippers was 

bought for my lady for fear of her stumbling and thereby 

occasioning a miscarriage. On one occasion, observing my 

lady pretty big, I wished her much joy of her little big belly. 

His lordship laughed, and remarked that that was an Irish 

bull, and he mentioned to me that I might make a good nurse. 

This would be just before Christmas of the year Queen Anne 

died. I remember that, because I was married ten days before 

Christmas. Lady Altham did not lace herself as usual, and I 

thought and believed her to be big — she had the walk of a 

woman big with child. Jellies and broths were made for her. 

Soon after my marriage I left the family, but my husband 

stayed there. To the best of my knowledge, my lady left the 

house about six weeks after my departure. What first made me 

believe that my lady was with child was the fact that she was 

not seeing company. She gave herself full ease and liberty 

in her nightgown. 

Cross-examined — The occasion of my lady's miscarriage at 
Mrs. Vice's was my lord's coming in one night in liquor, and 
Bome dispute happening between him and Mrs. Heath, my 
lady's woman; a stool was thrown, which made a noise and 
frightened my lady. Mrs. Heath said, " You have done a fine 

89 



The Annesley Case. 

MaVcSmlck t^'"^' ^" "^"^^'' "^- ^'"^^' niiscurry." I am acquainted with one 
Joan Landy, my sisttT-in-law. 

Did you ever see her after her marriage with your brother? 
— No, not until I received a summons from Mr. Annesley. I do 
not remember the names of Captain Briscoe's children, or when 
they visited Lady Altham. Mrs. Briscoe was an intimate 
acquaintance of Lady Altliam. 

In what manner do you get your livelihood ?— By my honest 
industry. My employment is stamping or printing papers for 
rooms. 

Had you any discourse with a Mrs. Shaw? — Yes, I papered 
a room for her. Having mentioned to Mrs. Shaw my living 
at Mrs. Vice's house, I was asked if I knew that Mr. Annesley 
was a son of Lord Altham. I said, if he was the son of Lady 
Altham, he must have been the child she was going with when 
she lived with my mistress, but, says I, " I will not take upon 
me to swear whether she was with child or not." By virtue of 
my oath I did not tell Mrs. Shaw that Lady Altham was not 
with child while I lived with Mrs. Vice. 

D. Briscoe Mrs. Dorothy Briscoe, recalled by defendant's counsel— I 
heard Lady Altham was with child and miscarried at Dunmaine. 
I cannot charge my memory if Lady Altham was a second time 
with cliild. My mother and sister came home from Dunmaine 
after about three months. Lord and Lady Altham came to 
Dublin after Queen Anne died. I do not remember her ladyship 
being with child. I had the smallpox when Queen Anne died, 
and my mother came to town upon my sickness. Lord Altham 
came from Dunmaine about August. I know the witness Alice 
Bates. 

Did you ever hear from her that Lady Altham was with 
child? — Indeed, I can't tell, but I might, for she tells me a 
hundred things about my own family which I am an entire 
stranger to, and an honest, worthy woman she is as ever lived 
by bread. 

H. Cole Mrs. Henrietta Colb, recalled by defendant's counsel — I heard 
that after the miscarriage Lady Altham had a child. I know 
Alice Bates. I remember when she was a servant with my 
mother. I do not recollect her ever talking about Lady 
Altham being with child. After Lady Altham came to town in 
August I believe she visited at my father's house. My sister 
Dorothy then had the smallpox, and I was sent out of the house. 
Lady Altham did not come to town till two or three months 
after my mother came to town, and that was towards winter. 
My mother and I called at Burton Hall, and stayed there 
about six weeks. It was then the fruit season. I am sure I 
90 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

was at Dunmaine in the month of May. There is no circum- H. Cole 
stance whereby I could particularise the time of Lady Altham's 
coming to town. She might have been in town without my 
knowledge or without visiting me. Both Lord and Lady Altham 
might have been in town a month or sii weeks before I saw 
them. 

Charles MacCarthy,. examined — I knew Lord Altham for at C. MaeCarthy 
least seven years. I first became acquainted with his lady 
when they lived at Mrs. Vice's in the year 1715 or 1716. I 
lived then in College Green, and Lord Altham had a coach- 
house and stables from me in Chequer Lane. I was out of the 
Kingdom v.hen Queen Anne died on 1st August, 1714. I first 
was acquainted with Lady Altham about a year or a year and 
a half after Queen Anne died. 

(This witness not speaking to the same time as the other 
witnesses, plaintiff's counsel declined to further examine him.) 

Cross-examined — When I knew Lady Altham it was reported 
that she was with child. They were talking of going to Dun- 
maine, and my lord wished I had a room for my lady, because 
he was afraid of her travelling, as she was with child, but my 
house was full. Parliament was sitting when Lord Altham 
lodged at Mrs. Vice's. 

Major Richard Fitzgerald, examined — I knew Lord Altham R. Fitzgerald 
very intimately. In 1714 I lived at a place called Prospect 
Hall, in the county of Waterford. Lord Altham lived then at 
Dunmaine. I also knew Lady Altham. I was at Dunmaine 
in September, 1715. 

Aio you sure it was in September, 1715? — I am certain. I 
could not then see Lady Altham, because she was lying-in at 
that time. She sent word down to me that if she could see 
anybody she would see me. 

What was the occasion of your going to Dunmaine? — I met 
Lord Altham at Ross, and he invited me to dine with him 
the next day. I desired to be excused, as I was to dine with 
some officers, but Lord Altham said that I must dine with 
him, and come to drink some groaning drink, for that liis 
wife was in labour. I said that that was a reason I ought 
not to go, but he woiihl not take an excuse. He sent me word 
tho next day to Ross that his wife was brought to bed of a 
son. I went to Dunmaine, and dined there, and we had some 
discourse about the child. Lord Altham swore that T should 
see his son, and accordingly the nurse brought the cliild. and 
I kissed it, and gave half-a-guinea to the nurse. Some of the 
company toasted the heir-apparent to Lord Anglesea at dinner. 
I don't remember who the company were, but there was one 

91 



The Annesley Case. 



R. Fitzg«raid Captain Robert Pbaire present. I left the country next day, 
and went to my own house at Prospect Hall. I never met 
or heard of Altham again till I heard of his death, nor did 
I ever see the child again. I have to-day seen the woman 
to whom I gave the half-guinea. I remember her well, be- 
cause I noticed when I gave her the half-guinea that she was 
very handsome. I did not stay at Dunmaine that night ; I 
went to Ross at nightfall, and I remember that I was attacked by 
some robbers on the road. I remember that Lord Altham 
was in high spirits at the thought of having a son and heir. 

Cross-examined — Prospect Hall is about 28 miles from 
Dunmaine. 

Can you remember the particular business that carried you 
to Ross at that time? — My uncle. Councillor Pigot, lived in the 
County of Wexford, and at his death he left a child of mine a 
legacy, which occasioned my going there. I cannot tell when 
Mr. Pigot died. Harvest was begun up and down before 
I left home for Ross. 

John Turner John Turner, examined — I knew Lord and Lady Altham 
for several years at Dunmaine. I was steward to Lord 
Anglesea, and visited Lord Altham. I believe I knew Lady 
Altham first in 1711. I was married on 29th December, 
1714. My wife and I went to Dunmaine about Lent, and 
stayed about three weeks there. I observed that Lady Altham 
was big at the time we went there, and my wife told me she 
was with child. The following July Lady Altham told me 
that she had a son. About a year and a half afterwards I 
saw the boy at Dunmaine ; he was about two years old then. 
I stayed two nights or thereabouts at Dunmaine, and I had the 
child in my arms. I saw Lady Altham leading the child 
across the parlour two or three times. I saw Lord Altham 
kiss the child, and I heard Lady Altham call him Jemmy. 
I don't know Mrs. Heath. I afterwards saw the child at Ross 
when he was about three years old, and at Kinnea, in the 
County of Kildare. 

How was the child treated at Kinnea ? — He was dressed as the 
son of a nobleman, and the servants called him master. He went 
by the name of Jemmy. I believe I saw him two or three 
times at Kinnea. The child could walk very well at Kinnea, 
and he used to be wheeled about in a little carriage by Lord 
Altham. Lord Altham still showed the same fondness to the 
child. Once, in 1722, when I was at a tavern in Dublin 
with Lord Altham, he said that he would send for his son so 
that I might see him, and the child accordingly was sent for. 
He was then about eight years old. Lord Altham said to 
me, "You were steward to Earl John and Earl Arthur, and 
you may be steward to this child here." I believe I saw the 
92 



Evidence tor Plaintiff. 

child once afterwards in Dublin, but I did not know him — John Tupn«p 
I was only told it was he. That was about two or three 
years after the meeting in the tavern. The child had no 
clothes, and was so much altered, that although the people 
of the tavern told me he was Lord Altham's son, I did not 
know how to believe it. Lord Altham lived for about four 
years after I saw the child in this condition. I never saw 
the child after Lord Altham's death. 

Cross-examined — I do not know where Lord Altham was 
living when I saw the child in that poor condition, but I 
believe it was at Inchicore. I did not inquire where he was, 
nor about the child, having heard that the child born at 
Dunmaine was dead many years before. I was settled the 
year after my marriage near Camolin Deer Park. It was 
visible that Lady Altham was with child. 

What sort of a woman was she? — She was a big-boned, 
lusty, and swarthy woman, and her hair was brown. My wife 
and I constantly ate at the table with Lord and Lady Altham. 
I do not know what neighbours visited at Lord Altham's, but 
I think I have seen Colonel Palliser there. I do not know one 
of the servants by name. I might know them then, but I 
do not now recollect them. I have seen Lady Altham's woman, 
but I do not know that her name was Heath. I saw Mary 
Heath, but I did not know her to be my lady's woman. I 
have heard the name of Rolph, but I could not say whether 
he was the butler or not. I do not remember the name of 
the servant who made my bed. I do not know the name 
of the cook or of the nurse. 

Did you ever hear of the name of Joan, or Juggy Landy? — 
I never heard of her name at that time. I saw the child at 
Mrs. Butler's house at Ross. I knew who the child was, 
because I asked. I saw the same child at Carrickduflf. I 
afterwards saw the child at Dublin, when he was ten or eleven 
years old, and in a miserable bad dress. I never saw Lady 
Altham but at Dunmaine, at Ross, and in Dublin after her 
parting with my lord. I never heard till within the last 
two or three years that Lord Altham had a bastard. Lord 
Altham died about 1728. I saw the boy in a ragged condition 
some time before Lord Altham died on the Upper Arran Quay 
in Dublin, and I heard little boys call him " my lord." A 
woman that sold some apples in the market told me he was 
Lord Altham's son. Lord Altham applied to mo in 1717 or 
1718 to speak to Lord Anglesea to help to maintain his son; 
nnd T did so. Earl Arthur gave mc £50 for that purpose. 
T cannot tell whether he was of opinion that i^ord Altham 
hnd a son. Aftjor the death of Lord Altham I heard my Lord 
Anglesea came into possession of the estate. 

93 



Tlie Annesley Case. 



John Turner How came it that you that knew that Lord Altham had a 
son did not disclose it that he might inherit? — I don't know. 
I never did tell anybody that he had a son. I did not know 
that Lord Altham had a son living at the time of his death. 
Being recommended by Mr. Caesar Colclough to the present 
Earl of Anglesea, I frequently ^Yent to see him, and he used 
to entertain me with telling me how much he was perplexed 
by law suits. I asked him one day what had become of 
Jemmy, and he answered that he was dead. 

D. Redmonds Dennis Redmonds, examined — I knew Lord and Lady 
Altham. I was for three years servant to his lordship a 
little after he came to Dunmaine about thirty-three years 
ago. I knew that Lady Altham was with child, because I 
saw that she was big. It was the talk of all the servants. 
She was brought to bed at Dunmaine. I was sent by Mrs. 
Heath for the midwife, Mrs. Shiels, the day before her 
delivery, and I brought her from a house opposite the barracks 
in Ross. She stayed two days or thereabouts. The child 
was christened James when it was about three weeks old, by 
Lord Altham's chaplain, Mr. Lloyd. The godfathers were 
Councillor Cliffe and Mr. Anthony Colclough, and the god- 
mother was Madam Pigot. The nurse who nursed the child 
was Joan Landy. I was told that she was preferred because 
she had the best milk. I never knew Lord Altham to have 
any other child. There was a bonfire made and other rejoic- 
ings for the birth of the child. There was great drinking and 
carousing, and some of them were found drunk in the ditches 
next morning. The child was nursed about a quarter of a mile 
from the house, in Joan Landy 's house, which was upon my 
lord's land. Nobody lived in that house but the nurse's 
father and mother. Lord Altham and his lady often went 
there to see the child and to bring him to Dunmaine, and 
Lady Altham had a coach road made on purpose to go and see 
the child. The child, which was dressed like a nobleman's 
child, remained with the nurse about a year, and was then 
removed to Dunmaine, where Joan LafEan had charge of him. 
In the beginning of 1717 my lady went from Dunmaine on 
account of something between Mr. Thomas Palliser and her. 
Lady Altham had the child in her arms and was kissing it aa 
she was going away, and Lord Altham came out in a great 
passion and took the child from my lady and gave it to Joan 
Laffan. Lady Altham begged to have the child along with 
her, but my lord lefused. I heard her say that she desired 
to have her own child with her. Mary Heath was in the 
chariot along with Lady Altham. She sent for the child to 
Ross, but could not have it. The child had gold lace on his 

94 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

hat, and was dressed like a nobleman's child. Meagher was D. Redmonds 
butler at this time. I saw the child at CarrickdufE — I think 
six rears afterwards. I knew him by his face to be the same 
child as I saw at Dimmaine. I did not stay at CarrickduflE. 
I only went there to break some horses for my lord, I being 
a horse-rider. I saw Lord Altham walking about with the 
child at Carrickduff. I have heard that Mr. Lloyd, who 
christened ih.Q child, is dead, and that the godfathers and 
godmother are also dead. 

Cross-examined — I was servant to Lord Altham about two 
years before her ladyship came to Dunmaine. She was not 
long there before every one said she was with child. She 
was brought to bed about JIay. I was not present at the 
christening. I believe the midwife, for whom I was sent to 
Ross, is dead. Joan Landy was the nurse, and she afterwards 
married Daniel MacCormack. I cannot tell if she was married 
before. She had a child about a year before Lord Altham, 
of which some said that Lord Altham was the father. 

The Lord Chief Baron — It seems odd that Lady Altham 
should .send her child to be nursed to a person suspected to 
have a child by her ladyship's husband. 

Cross-examination resumed — I saw Landy's child. It waa 
christened by Father Michael Downes, and Landy's mother and 
sister took care of it when she nursed my lady's child. Landy's 
child died of smallpox at the age of three or four years, after 
Lord Altham had left Dunmaine. I was at the burial. 

By what name was Landy's child called? — Sometimes it waa 
calley Jemmy Landy and sometimes MacCormack. I never heard 
Landy's child called Jemmy Annesley. I never heard it called 
Lord Altham's child. Landy's old house was put in repair 
for the reception of my lady's child. I was never examined 
before my present deposition. Colonel Palliser in some dis- 
course with me desired me not to have anything to say to this 
affair. 

Margaret Surcliffb, examined — I knew Lord and Lady M. Surcllffe 
Altham. Mrs. Shiels, the midwife, told me that she delivered 
Lady Altham of a child about April or May, about twenty-nine 
year-s ago. She came from Lady Altham to deliver me, and 
told me herself that a man and horse came for her. 

Evidence objected to as hearsay evidence. 

The Court allowed the objection. 

Mart Dotlb, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady Mary Doyle 
Altham. I was hired by the steward to be a servant in Lord 
Altham's service. I lived with Lady Altham tlirtc months 
before she was brought to bed, and I was in the room when 

95 



The Annesley Case. 



Mary Doyle she was delivered of a son at Duumaine. Mrs. Shiels, who 
lived at Ross, was the midwife. Dennis Redmonds was sent 
for her. Lord Altham was at home at the time. There 
were three or four servants, one Madam Butler and another 
lady present when Lady Altham was delivered. The christen- 
ing of the child was public, and I was present at it. Mr. 
Anthony Colclough and Councillor Cliffe were the godfathers, 
and Mrs. Pigot was the godmother. My lord's chaplain, Mr, 
Lloyd, christened the child. There were great rejoicings for 
the birth, and plenty of wine and other liquors drank on that 
occasion. Several nurses came recommended, and one Joan 
Landy was appointed nurse. I have heard that she was 
then married to one MacCormack. She was a clean, bright 
girl. She was reputed to have had her child by her husband. 
I never heard she had had it by a sailor. I lived at Dunmaine 
for about five weeks after Lady Altham's child was born, and 
then I left for good. 

Cross-examined — I remember to have seen Major Fitzgerald 
there a few days after Lady Altham was delivered. She was 
delivered some time in May. I never knew of any person 
being brought to bed at Dunmaine but Lady Altham. The 
child was christened in the big parlour about three weeks after 
his birth. Mrs. Heath was present at the christening. 

Did you ever hear that Joan Landy had a bastard by Lord 
Altham? — Yes, I heard she had a bastard. I never was at 
Joan Landy 's house, but I heard from the servants there 
that it was about two fields from the house of Dunmaine. The 
child was sent to Joan Landy about a fortnight after the 
christening. Charles Meagher was the butler then. Mary 
Heath was in the room when Lady Altham was delivered of the 
child, and Lord Altham was in his own little parlour. Lady 
Altham was almost three hours in labour. It was duskish 
when she was brought to bed. She was taken ill the day 
before. 

D. Annesley Mrs. Deborah Ankeslet, examined — I knew Lord Altham 
when he lived at a place called Kinnea, in the County of Kil- 
dare. He was a relation of my husband. I lived at Bally- 
shannon, within 3 miles. Lord Altham used to visit us very 
often. At this time Lord Altham and my brother, Mr. 
Geoffrey Paul, used often to drink his son's health. 

Did you visit Lord Altham at Kinnea? — No, I did not care 
to go down to the house, because Lord Altham had brought 
down a housekeeper there. My brother visited Lord Altham. 
I believed the child was my lord's lawful son — I never heard 
the contrary. The child was called James. My brother 
was a sober, grave man, and I am sure he would not have 

96 



Evidence for Plaintiff, 

toasted the health of the child if had been a bastard. The d. Annesler 

child went with Lord Altham to Carrickduflf, and I never heard 

of it afterwards. After the death of Lord Altham my brother 

and I frequently inquired what had become of the boy, but we 

never could learn, and that made us all conclude that he was 

dead. 

Cross-examined — I never doubted, I always believed that the 
child was Lord Altham's son, but I admit that I did not hear of 
the child till he came to Kinnea. After Lady Altham came 
over the second time from England she was supposed to be 
with child. I once visited Lady Altham when she came to 
the country, but, my husband soon after dying and I being in 
affliction, I never had any correspondence with the family 
afterwards. I myself drank Lord Altham's son's health often 
when my lord lived at Kinnea. 

In what terms was it that your brother used to drink the 
health of the child? — "My lord, here's your lordship's son's 
health," which my lord seemed to take as a compliment. 

Did you ever hear that Lord Altham had ever a bastard 
son? — I never did hear that he had any bastard child. 

Thomas BAR>rs, examined — I knew Lord and Lady Altham T. Barn* 
very well. I knew nothing of my lord's having a son but 
what I was told by my lord. I went to Ross in the spring of 
1715. Lord Altham came to the inn where I was, and, meeting 
me in the kitchen, said he was glad to see me. We agreed 
to dine together, and then we went upstairs. After drinking 
some wine my IotvI said to me, "Tom, I'll tell you good news. 
I've a son by Moll Sheffield." Not remembering that she was 
my lord's wife, I shook my head, and said, "Who is Moll 
Sheffield?" My lord taking notice of my meaning, said, 
" Zoons, man, she's my wife," upon which I said, "My 
lord, I humbly beg your pardon. I am sorry for what I 
said." Until my lord mentioned that she was his wife I 
took her to be some naughty pack, but afterwards I recollected 
that my lord's wife was the Duke of I3uckin<rham's daughter. 
I then advised him that since he had a son he should take 
care of liis wife and discharge all other women. I know the 
year I wont into the country, because I went upon liearing 
of my father's death. Mv lord lived at Dunmaine after the 
disgrace of the Duke of Ormond. The reason I remember is 
that 1 was receiver to the duke for fortv-five years, and I 
came to Diiblin from the country by order of Mr. Nutley, who 
was concerned for the duke. I was at Dunmaine tlio day 
after my lord and I had the conversation at Rosa. I saw 
Lady Altham there. I micht see a child there, but I am not 
certain. I do not remember any conversation with Lady 
Altham about the child at Dunmaine. I dined and supped 
H 97 



The Annesley Case. 

T. Barns there, and I remember Lady Altham being at dinner, but not 
at supper. I think one Mr. Sutton was at dinner. I saw 
the servants at that time, but I do not recollect if they said 
anything to me or I to them. I do not remember seeing 
any nuise or child about the house. 

Cross-examined — I went to Ross either in April or May, but 
I cannot say positively which month. I might have seen 
Rolph, the butler, but I do not know him now. I did not 
know the servants Dwyer or Cavanagh. I knew Mr. Taylor, 
but I had no discourse with him about the son. Lord Altham 
did not tell me whether or not the child was christened, nor 
what his name was. Nobody was present at Ross when my 
lord spoke to me about his son. The discourse was after 
dinner, and as common discourse, not as a secret. 

How was it that you did not understand his lordship's ex- 
pression of his having a son by Moll Sheffield? — I did not 
recollect who she was. I am sixty-five years old. I have 
served the Duke of Ormond since 1695. 

Did you not say you had served him forty-five years? — I 
meant to this day. I have heard five hundred at Ross say 
that Lord Altham had a son. 

S. Plgot Southwell Pigot, examined — I knew Lady Altham by sight. 
It was generally reported, without any contradiction, that she 
had a child about thirty years ago. I came over from 
England about the year 1712. There was a great intimacy 
between my stepmother, Mrs. Pigot, and Lady Altham. Mrs. 
Pigot died "about 1720 or 1721. I never heard that the child 
I have heard Lady Altham had was a daughter. 

What did you hear your stepmother say about her being 
godmother to the child? 

The question was objected to, and the objection was allowed. 

PhUlp Breen Philip Breen, examined — I knew Lady Altham about thirty- 
three years ago at Dunmaine, where my father and mother 
lived, and Lord Altham long before that. I saw Lady Altham 
big with child at Dunmaine, and I also heard from the people 
of the place that she was with child. About twenty-eight or 
twenty-nine years ago (a little before or after May) there 
were grent rejoicings at Dunmaine over the birth of a child. 
Joan Landy nursed the child at her father's house, which was 
a thatched house, and was repaired on that occasion. I have 
seen the child with Lord and Lady Altham in the coach. I 
remember the child Joan Landy had, and that it died of 
smallpox after Lord Altham left Dunmaine — I believe about a 
year afterwards. T was at the wake and burial. The child 
which Landy nursed was removed to Dunmaine, and delivered 
to Joan Laffan, one of the maids there. There was a coach 

98 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

road made between Landy's house and Dunmaine House, and Philip Breen 
I have seen the coach go that road. I remember Mrs. Heath 
at Dunmaine at the time I saw the child. I have seen her 
take the child and play with him. 

Cross-examined — I can't tell how I came to take notice of 
Mrs. Heath more than of any other woman. Some people 
about the town said that Lord Altham was the father of Joan 
Landy's child. Joan Landy was married to Daniel 

MacCormack after Lord Altham left Dunmaine. Lord Altham 
was supposed to have got the child in the house of Dunmaine 
when Landy was dairymaid. Joan Landy's child was about 
a year old when Lady Altham came to Dunmaine. 

Do you not know that Joan Landy was turned out of the 
house upon Lady Altham's coming do-WTi with my lord? — I don't 
know that she was before, but she was turned out. Lady 
Altham was a tall woman, and Mrs. Heath was tall and thin. 
Joan Landy's child was called James Landy. I do not 
remember him ever being called Jemmy MacCormack. 

Did you ever hear him called Jemmy Annesley ? — L^pon my 
oath I did not. I do not know who christened the child, or 
by what name it was christened. While Lord Altham's child 
was being nursed by Joan Landy her child was kept at her 
father's house. 

Eleanor Mxtrpht, examined — I knew Lord and Lady Altham E. Murphy 
at Dunmaine about twenty-eisrht or twenty-nine years ago. 
I was a servant there when my lady was brought to bed. I 
was called to bring up some water to my lady's room, and I 
went into the room with a basin of water immediately after 
Lady Altham was delivered of her son. Mrs. Shiels was the 
midwife. Dennis Redmonds was sent to Ross for her. When 
I went into the room Madam Butler, Mrs. Heath, and Mary 
Doyle were there. This liappencd about the beginning of 
summer. I remained at Dunmaine about two or three months 
after my lady's delivery of the son. Jnggy Landy was the 
nurse. Several other women had applied for the nurse's 
place. I remember tliat there were bonfii-es and rejoicings at 
Dunmaine over the birth of a son. The child was about three 
weeks at Dunmaine after its birth, and then the nurse took 
him to her own house. A road was made from Dunmaine 
house to the nurse's house for the convenience of mv lady's 
going there. Mr. Anthony Colclough and Mr. CliflFe were the 
godfathers, and Mrs. I*i<_'ot was the crodmnther, as 1 lioard 
from several of the servants. Mr. ClifFe of Ross and Madam 
Picrot used to come to Dnnm.-iinc. I saw them tlicre often. I 
was in the hotise at the rhristening, but I was not present. I 
wuH servant under the lanndrymaid. I remember Mrs. Heath 
was in the room when my lady was brought to bed. The 

99 



The Annesley Case. 



B. Murphy christening waa about three or four weeks after the child was 
born. Joan Landy had a house of her own before the 
nursing. I believe her mother and sister lived with lier, but I 
do not know if her father was alive when she took Lady 
Altham's child to nurse. Joan Landy's own child was born 
about three-quarters of a year before Lady Altham's child, 
and it continued in the house with her after she took my 
lady's child to nurse, but in a different room. I believe the 
house was the same as it was before Landy had the nursing of 
the child. 

Cross-examined — I went no further than the door of the 
house. 

How could you know that there was another room? — The 
room was built as an addition to the old house. 

Did you ever see Joan Landy's child before she got my lord's 
nursing? — Yes; I never saw it afterwards. It was about duskish 
when I went up to my lady's room with the water. Lady 
Altham had not a hard labour. She kept her room a month 
or six weeks after the birth. The child was cliristened before 
my lady left her room. It was christened in the yellow room, 
up one pair of stairs. I do not know who were at the christen- 
ing. I was three months in the service before the birth of the 
child and a quarter of a year after. Mary Doyle came into 
the service before me, but I do not remember which of us left 
first. I have never seen her since, and I do not know that I 
could find her now. 

Was Joan Landy married at that time? — Not that I know of. 

Did not you say she had a child? — Well, and could not she 
have a child without being married? 

Was it unde^-stood that her child was a bastard? — I don't 
know. I don't know who she fathered it upon. 

Did not she father it upon Lord Altham? — I never heard any 
such thing. 



Second Day, Saturday, I2th November, 1743. 

C Brown CHRISTOPHER Brown, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham 
when he first came to Dunmaine, about thirty-three years ago, 
and I also knew Lady Altham when she came there about thirty 
years ago. To my knowledge, Lady Altham had a child about 
twenty-eight or twenty-nine years ago. At that time I was a 
servant wuth Mr. Anthony Cliffe. He went to the christening 
of Lady Altham's child at Dunmaine, and I waited at table 
upon him that day. Besides my master I remember seeing Mr. 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

Anthony Colclough, Mr. Cliffe of Ross, and Captain Tench. I C. Brown 
am quite certain that Mr. Anthony Colclough was present at 
the christening. As near as I can tell, the christening took 
place in the month of May. There were no women present 
that I can recollect except Madam Pigot. Mr. Clifife of Ross 
was my master's brother. There were a good many people 
in and about the house that day, and there was a very fine 
entertainment. After that time I was often sent by my 
master to Dunmaine to ask how Lord and Lady Altham and 
the child were. I saw the child several times at Dunmaine 
with the nurse Joan Landy, and also in my lady's lap. I 
never saw the child at any other place than at Dunmaine. The 
child was a boy, as I heard them say. My master lived at 
Dungulph, about 3 miles from Dunmaine. At the christening 
the healths of the "Lady in the Straw" and "The Young 
Christian " were drunk. 

Cross-examined — I cannot say whether it was before or after 
dinner that the child was christened. There were other persons 
at table en the day of the christening besides those I have 
mentioned in my examination, but I do not know who 
they were. Lady Altham did not dine there. As I heard, 
the gentleman that christened the child was one Mr. Lloyd, a 
clergyman. My master stayed at Dunmaine till about eight 
o'clock that night. I could not say whether my master left 
the room that he dined in till he came away, because I was not 
there. Mr. Lloyd lived in Rosa, and I frequently saw him 
there. I am quite certain he was among the gentlemen at 
dinner at Dunmaine. Madam Pigot sat at the upper end of 
the table. I do not remember whether there were any other 
women there or not. 

What is it that makes you recollect the particular persons 
you named 1 — Because I knew them all along. 

Do you remember the year 1720] — I do. 

Do you know where your master dined in May twenty years 
ago? — Indeed I don't. 

Do you know any place he dined at these thirty years pastt 
— Indeed I don't know. Captain Tench, my master, Mr. Cliffe 
of Ross, and Mr. Lloyd are all dead. I am not aware that 
there is any person living that I saw at the christening. I 
dined along with the- menservants that day. I could not say 
whether I dined with the upper or lower servants, as they were 
all among one another. I knew Mr. Taylor ; he did not dine 
with me. Dennis Redmonds dined with me. I could not say 
whether Mr. Taylor is still alive. No women dined at the 
table with me. I cannot remember which of the menservants 
dined with me. 

When you waited at table, did you not observe the servantR 
that waited with you? — If I did, they were so busy they did 



The Annesley Case. 



C. Brown not dine with ua. 1 saw the man that served as butler that 
day several times before, but I have never seen him since. 
I think his naa^e was Anthony Dyer, but I did not know him. 
He did not dine with uie that day. 

Did he not serve you with drink? — Some of the servants did. 
I cannot recollect the name of any servant that dined with 
me, as it is so long ago. 

Did you sit drinking for any time after dinner at your own 
table?— We did. 

You drank healths, I suppose? — Aye did we, and were very 
merry there. I don't remember any particular health that was 
drank at our table. I could not say whether or not we had a 
goose for dinner that day. 

Were there any partridge at dinner that day? — I cannot tell 
whether there was or }io, so you need not ask anything more 
about that. Can I carry it in my head to keep an account of 
them things? 

How do you know who were gossips? — I heard among the 
servants. I could not say whether the child was christened 
above or below stairs, because I was not to the fore. I did 
not see either the child or the nurse that day. I knew Captain 
Sutton, but I cannot recollect whether I ever saw him at 
Dunmaine or not, I do not know whether he dined there at 
the christening. I knew him as well as Captain Tench. I 
remember that Captain Tench dined at Dunmaine that day, 
because my master's sister was married to him. I remember 
that Anthony Colclough dined there, because he was one of the 
gossips. My master did not stay at Dunmaine that night. 
There were great rejoicings that night. I did not see a bonfire. 
Do you know that there was a bonfire there any other night? 
— No, nothing but what I heard from the servants. I did not 
know one Rolph, Thomas Rolph, the butler, and I never saw 
him to my knowledge. 

You say that you were at Dunmaine several times with 
messages. To whom did you deliver them? — To Mr. Taylor. 
I cannot say when I last saw Mr. Taylor. I don't know 
whether I have seen him during the last twenty years. 

How can you remember that you delivered your messages 
to Mr. Taylor? — Why should I not remember it? I never 
delivered any messages to any woman servant. 
Do you know my lady's woman? — I did not. 
Did you know Mrs. Heath? — I cannot tell whether I did or 
no. 

When you went with these civil messages were not you called 
up to my lady's room? — I never was. 

Had you any answer brought you down from my lady's 
room? — I had. Mr. Taylor brought those answers to me. 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

What was he? Did he wear a livery? — A livery! No, he C. Brow* 
wore extraordinary good clothes. I believe he was my lord's 
gentleman that looked after my lord's concerns. He lived in 
the house. 

He was accidentally the person you met? — Why, I always 
inquired for him and stayed till I found him. I don't know 
whether he is still alive. 

What do you believe, sir? — I believe in God, sir. 

Do you know one Mary Doyle? — I know several Mary 
Doyles, but perhaps not the one you are inquiring after. 

Do you know one Nellie Murphy? — Where does she live, 
sir? 

In the parish of Tyntern? — I do not. I live in the parish 
of Dunbrody. 

Did you see any women within this week that were called 
by the names of Mary Doyle and Nellie Murphy? — Indeed I 
don't know whether I did or no. I saw Lady Altham after 
the christening in the parlour at Dunmaine, but I do not know 
how long after the christening it would be that I saw her the 
first time. I saw her with the child in her lap. I believe 
that would be about a year after the christening day. She 
was a very fine woman, tall and slender in her face. She was 
not fat. I don't know what colour her hair was, as it was 
always powdered. I don't know whether her hair was red 
or not. I can't tell whether her complexion was fair or 
dark. She appeared to me a very handsome woman. 

Was she a fat or thin woman? — I tell you she was a very 
thin, spare woman. 

Was she so in her body? — Indeed I cannot tell. 

What do you mean then by that? — I mean in the face. 
She was taller than I was. 

How often did you see my lady? — She was sitting down 
in the parlour, and I never saw her but that time. 

How do you know, then, that she was taller than you? — Her 
bulk showed her to be a tall woman. 

You say you never saw her but once ; why did you say that 
her hair was always powdered? — I said I believed so, because I 
saw her hair powdered that day. I never saw her before or 
after that day. I thought she was always powdered, because 
I belif;ve all ladies wear powder. I think it would be about 
ten o'clock when I saw her. 

How long did you live with Mr. Cliffe before this christen- 
ing? — I don't know how long before, but I lived one-and- 
twenty years with him. I cannot tell how long I lived with 
him after the cliristfning. I was living with him when and 
after Lord Altham came to Dunmaine. My master was at 
Dunmaine when Lord Altham was there on other occasions 

»o3 



The Annesley Case. 



0. Brown besides that of the christening. He did not dine there ; he 
went there in the afternoon. Lord Altham sometimes came to 
my master's house, but Lady Altham never came. My 
master had some sisters that lived in the house with him, but 
they did not visit Lady Altham. I never saw Lady Altham 
or the child in Lord Altham's coach. Anthony Dyer waited 
as butler on the day of the christening. 

Did he not wait at the sideboard? — He used to run about 
the house, up and down. I went to the sideboard that day 
for my master, and I helped myself to what I wanted. There 
were a great many other servants there. Mr. Cliflfe of Ross 
had a servant there that day ; I think his name was Magee. 
He, along with every gentleman's servant, waited at dinner. 
All those gentlemen's servants dined with me, but I don't 
know the name of any of them. 

Upon your oath, do you remember the name of any one 
person with whom you yourself dined that day? — I don't, 
sir ; so you may ask me no more about their names. I do not 
remember who any of them belonged to as it is so long ago. 

Pray, friend, did you not know Magee? — I knew he was the 
Councillor's servant, and as near as I can guess they called 
him Magee. I did not luiow him any more than the rest of 
the servants. Councillor Cliffe was my master's brother, but 
Magee did not live long with him. He was at Dunmaine with 
me that day, but I can't tell whether he dined with me. I 
don't know how many tables there were for the servants. 
We dined in the common hall. I can't remember whether 
one Dennis Redmonds dined with me that day. 

Sir, have you not sworn that Dennis Redmonds dined with 
you that day? — I don't know. The common hall was on the 
same floor as the parlour. I don't know how large the servants' 
hall was. I believe some of the servants dined in the kitchen, 
but I did not dine there. I dined at a long table. I saw but 
one table for the servants in the common hall that day. 

When you went on the several messages you mentioned after 
the christening, were you ever in any room of the house? — I 
was not, but only sometimes I'd go to the kitchen. The 
kitchen was above ground that time, upon the same floor with 
the parlour and the common hall. I think the common hall 
is on the right hand of the great door, and the kitchen is 
beyond that. I did not go downstairs into the common hall 
or into the kitchen. I went in at the street door. The kitchen 
is nearer to the hall than to the parlour. 

You say the kitchen is nearer to the hall than it is to the 
parlour? — I say the common hall is nearer to the parlour 
than to the kitchen, and the kitchen above that again. 

Was the kitchen upon the same floor with the hall? — It 
was upon the same floor, 
104 



Evidence for Plaintift. 

John Scott, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham when John Seott 
he lived at Dunmaine thirty years ago. I was servant to Mrs. 
Pigot, who lived at Tyntern, within 4 miles of Dunmaine, the 
year this gentleman was born, about twenty-eight or twenty- 
nine years ago. 

What gentleman do you mean? — ^Why, the child. 

What child? — Why, Mr. Annesley. 

Whose child was he? — My Lord Altham's. I was sent 
several times from Mrs. Pigot to Lord and Lady Altham's at 
Dunmaine to inquire how the child, Master Jemmy Annesley, 
did. Sir Harry Pierce, who married my master's daughter, told 
me he had a letter from his lady giving an account that my lord 
had a son. The general reputation of the country was that my Lord 
Altham had a son by my lady. I have seen the child brought 
by the nurse to Mrs. Pigot three or four times. 

Cross-examined — I knew the house at Dunmaine very well, 
because I was born near it. I used to go through the yard to 
the kitchen. The kitchen was not on the same floor as the 
parlour. Going in at the front door, the kitchen is down 
some ten or twelve steps. The servants' hall is between the 
kitchen and the little parlour, below stairs. There is no 
hall for the servants to dine in on the same floor as the 
parlour. I was only once in England, and that was about 
twenty-eight or twenty-nine years ago. It was after my 
return from England that Lord and Lady Altham's child was 
born. 

Chkistopher Brown, recalled by the Court, examined — The c. Brown 
house of Dunmaine had a front and back door. I do not recollect 
whether I went up to the front part of the house by steps 
or not, nor am I sure whether or not the gentry dined in 
the best parlour. I cannot remember whether coming in 
at the front door there were any steps down to the kitchen. 
The kitchen was on the same floor as the parlour where the 
gentry dined, and was also on the same floor as the hall where 
the servants dined. 

John Scott, recalled by the Court, examined — I delivered my John Scott 
first message at Dunmaine to Anthony Dyer. I delivered 
my next message to Joan Laffan, who was a servantmaid in 
the house. The butler at that time was one Thomas Kolph. 
Owen Cavanngh lived with Lord Altham, but not at that 
time. I knew Martin Neif, who lived there, and I knew that 
Mrs. Heath was my lady's woman. 

JoAx Laffan, examined — I knew the Late Lord and Lady joan Laffan 
Altham. I went into the service of Lady Altham in the 

105 



The Anncslcy Case. 



Joan Laffan harvest time of 1715, but 1 do not remember in what montl- 
I was tlien engjaKed as chambermaid, and then when Lord and 
Lady Ahliani's child came from the wet nurse I was emplojed 
to attend him. . I continued to take care of the child for nearly 
a year and a half. His name was James Annesley, and he 
was kept like a nobleman's child. As near as I can remem- 
ber he was about a year and a half old when I took care 
of him. I believe he would be about three or four months 
old when I first entered Lady Altham's service. During the 
time I took care of the child Lord and Lady Altham were 
vei-y fond of him, and he was treated by the house and neigh- 
bours as my lord and lady's lawful child. In the morning 
my lady would order me to bring the child, and would kiss 
him and call him a dear. The child was sent to a place 
called Kinnea when he was about three years old. I did not 
go with the child. Lord Altham sent his butler (whose name 
was Charles Fielding, he was generally called Meagher) for 
the child. About half a year after I had the care of the 
child my lord and lady separated, and my lady went to lodge 
at Captain Butler's at Ross. She parted in a very angry 
manner about Tom Palliser, whose ear was cut off in my 
presence. She requested to have her child with her, but my lord 
would not let her have him. Some of the servants of the house 
found means to carry the child privately to Ross to see my 
lady, and he was angry at that being done. After the 
separation the defendant, Lord Anglesea, came to Dunmaine 
and asked me, " AVhere is Jemmy; where is my brother's 
child?" 

Did he say, "My brother's child?" — Yes, upon my word, 
and he asked how his mother behaved to him. I told him 
that she requested my lord to have the favour of letting her 
have the child with her, and my lord would not let her have 
him. " Damn my blood," says he. " By my Saviour Jesus 
Christ, if I had been he I would have let her have him, and 
she might carry him to the devil, for I would keep none of 
the breed of her." I remember the oath as if I had heard 
him the other day. I am of a good family, and I would not 
have waited on the child if I had believed him to be a bastard. 

Cross-examined — I saw Lord Altham's child immediately after 
I came into the service. Sweet whey was made for the nurse 
to drink, because my lady ordered that she should not eat 
greens, potatoes, or roots for fear of hurting her milk. Some- 
times my lady would ride in the evening to Joan Landy's 
house and fetch the child in the coach with lier. I commenced 
to attend the child after I had been at Dunmaine for about a 
year. 

Did he live constantly in the nurse's house till he came to 
you? — Yes, but now and then when company was at my lord's 
io6 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

house the nurse and child would stay all night. Upon my Joan LafFan 

oath I saw the child shown to Lord Doneraile, who took out 

a handful of gold and bade him take his choice of a piece. 

That was after the separation. The child was shown to Lord 

Doneraile by me at the request of Lord Altham, who called 

for him and took a great deal of pleasure in him. The child 

was always shown to the company that came to Dunmaine 

House. Mrs. GiflFard sometimes called, and I think she saw 

the child, but I cannot tell, for Mrs. Giffard was not so grand 

a woman, and I took no great notice of her. Mrs. Giffard 

never visited after the separation. 

Did she visit between the time the child was committed to 
you and the separation? — Upon my word, I never do remem- 
ber to see her there during that time. While the child was 
at the wet nurse my lady would fetch it on fine days, and it 
was usually shown to her company during that time. It was 
dressed up like a nobleman's child, with a velvet cloak and 
a scarlet hat and feather. There were no fine clothes kept in 
the nurses's house. He was dressed at home by mv lady and 
Mrs. Heath to be shown to company. Nellie Butler was the 
laundrymaid at that time. Mi-s. Giflfard always dined with 
my lord and lady when she called. 

Do you not know that Mrs. Giffard's husband was reckoned 
a gentleman of estate and a Justice of the Peace? — Well, there 
are a great many indifferent men Justices of the Peace in our 
county. I remember Mrs. Lambert, who called very fre- 
quently, as she was a great friend. The child was shown to 
Mrs. Lambert during the time he was with the wet nurse as 
well as in my time. I knew Colonel Palliser ; he was very 
seldom at Dunmaine, and I cannot say whether he ever saw 
the child. 

Was Mr. Tom Palliser there? — He was there, and I wish 
he never had been, for if he had not this dispute would never 
have happened. He frequently saw the child. The child. 
Master Jemmy Annesley, showed me upon the floor the blood 
that came out of Tom Palliser's ear the very day that it was 
cut off. His ear was cut off by the huntsmen on my lord's 
order. I was present when his ear was cut off. My lord 
was going to take his life, but the servants desired him to cut 
his ear off instead. Palliser was brought out of my lady's 
chamber into a room and then my lord wished to run him 
through with a sword, but was prevented by the servants. 
This happened a})out eight o'clock on a Sunday morning. 
My lady left the house that evening. When they cut off 
Palliser's ear they kicked him downstairs and turned him out 
of the gate. I do not rememl>er seeing Colonel Loftus at 
Dunmaine. I remember Anthony Dyer; he was a poor lad 

107 



The Annesley Case. 

L&ffan tliat Lord Altham took up as a page. He attended at the 
table. I also remember Bryan MacCormack, Charles Fielding, 
and Mr. Taylor. The butler was Charles Meagher. I am 
positive that Tom Rolph was not there in my time. Mrs. 
Heath, my lady's woman, lived at Dunmaine all the time I was 
there. I do not remember Owen Cavanagh. I remember 
Martin Neif, who was a smith and lived in the family. I 
have known William Elmes since I was born. He is a good, 
honest man, a gentleman farmer, living about 2 miles from 
Dunmaine. I never saw him or any of his family at Dunmaine, 
but he sometimes used to hunt with my lord. I have only 
been once in England, and that was on 25th March, a year 
ago. I know William Henderson, a Quaker. I saw him at 
Waterford before I went to England. I went to his house in 
London. I do not exactly remember what company went with 
me in the ship. Joan Landy was there, but I do not think 
that Symon Phelan was in the same ship. The reason I went 
to England was that William Henderson having heard I waa 
a servant of Lord and Lady Altham he asked me if I knew 
anything of their having a son. I told him I did, but I said, 
" I believe this child is not living, for I heard he was trans- 
ported a long time ago." To that Henderson replied that 
he was not dead, that he was living in London. Bridget 
Howlat and Michael Boland also went in the same ship with 
me. I never made an affidavit in relation to this matter before 
Mr. Robert Snow, of Waterford. No person ever wrote down 
what I told them in relation to this matter in my presence. I 
was sworn before a Master in Chancery in London, and 
examined there. No person gave me any money to bear my 
charges to England. Joan Landy, Bridget Howlat, and I took 
a hackney coach to London. I cannot tell who hired that 
coach, but I paid 15s. or 16s. myself. I was not told before 
I left Ireland that there would be a coach for us at Bristol. 
I cannot tell whether Joan Landy was told. Mr. Henderson 
met me at Bristol, and travelled in the same coach to London. 

Did not Mr. Henderson pay for that coach? — He paid for 
the rest, I suppose, but not for me. Mr. Henderson paid the 
reckoning all along. I had designed going to England before 
I was applied to in England, becauise my nephews were going 
on board the King's ship. I paid a crown for my passage to 
Bristol. The first night I was in London I went to a lodging 
which Mr. Henderson had found for me. I cannot tell who 
paid for that lodging. 

Where did you spend your time in England? — They thought 
to have this trial in England, but something happened to 
hinder it. Mr. Henderson desired me to stay as his servant, 
io8 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

and I stayed in his house for a whole year. During that time Joan Lafira» 
I knew Mr. Patterson, a lawyer. Both he and Mr. MacKercher 
spoke to me about the present affair. Joan Landy stayed in 
Henderson's house as a servant as long as I did. Bridget 
Howlat did not stay there. Mr. Patterson did not speak to 
me about this matter more than once or twice. No bribe was 
ever given or offered to me. 

Mr. Baron Mounteney — I knew a practiser of that name, 
and if he be the person meant by the witness — I believe he ia 
— he is a gentleman of as fair character as any in the city of 
London. 

Cross-examination continued — Neither Mrs. Lambert nor 
Mrs. Giffard ever stayed a night at Dunmaine to my know- 
ledge. I never knew Lady Altham to visit Mrs. Giffard, as 
she was not so grand a woman as for my lady to visit her. 
I went to see the child at Joan Landy's house. He was 
always in his night-clothes there. 

Did you ever see the child after it was taken from you? — 
After I left the service (and I was the last servant at Dun- 
maine) I went to Kinnea to get my wages, and saw the child 
there in the care of a young woman called Mrs. Mary, a kind 
of tutoress to him. He was about four years old then. By 
the virtue of my oath he was the same child as the child I 
saw at Dunmaine. Joan Landy had a child of her own. She 
nursed it herself, and then afterwards it was nursed by her 
sister. The child was called Jemmy Landy. I never heard 
any other name. I heard that the child was dead. During 
the time of my lady's being at Dunmaine the child was reported 
to be Joan's child by a sailor, her husband, who was abroad, 
or else, to be sure, she would never have had my lady's child 
to nurse ; but I believe my lady somehow or other heard 
after the parting that it was by my lord she had it. I saw 
Father Michael Downes very seldom at Dunmaine. I do not 
remember that he was there when the child was there. I 
believe the kitchenmaid was present when Lord Anglesea swore 
that he would keep none of the breed of my Lady Altham. I 
am a Roman Catholic, but I do not belong to Father Downes' 
parish. 

Thomas Brooks, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady t. Brooks 
Altham. 

Of what profession are you? — I am a Roman Catholic. 

No, but what business or occupation do you follow?— I am 
a piece of a surgeon. I have followed my profession for forty- 
seven or forty-eight years. I lived in a town called Farreen, 
about 3 miles from Dunmaine. About twenty-eight or twenty- 

109 



The Annesley Case. 



T. Brooks nine years ago a servant of Lord Altham's came to my father's 
house in the evening, and desired me to hasten to Dunmaine 
immediately. He did not tell me then what I was wanted for. 
To the best of my knowledge this would be in the spring of the 
year. When I arrived at Dunmaine, Mrs. Shiels, whom I 
knew very well, came to me and showed me the way to my 
lady's room. Mrs. Shiels was a midwife. She ordered me 
to bleed the lady with all the speed I could. I knew the lady 
to be Lady Altham, because the midwife told me so. I had 
seen her before. 

Do 3'ou know from your own knowledge who that lady was? 
— I saw no other there but her, and she was called the Lady 
Altham. I foimd her sitting up in bed, and the midwife told 
me what her disorder was. When I was bleeding her she said, 
" Oh, my God," several times. I quitted the room immedi- 
ately after I had done my duty, and I went into another room 
to refresh myself. After a considerable time Mrs. Shiels 
came down smiling among the servants, and told us that the 
lady was delivered of a line son. 1 did not know Mrs. Heath, 
but she might be at Dunmaine unknown to me, because it is 
not my particular business to take notice of anybody when 
I go on such an errand. 

Cross-examined — To the best of my knowledge, I went up 
one pair of stairs to my lady's room. When I came out of 
her room I went into another room down stairs. I was not 
paid for my service. I cannot tell why. I did not see Lord 
Altham. I saw one Redmonds in the house, and I took him to 
be a servant. I do not know either Rolph or Anthony Dyer. 
I did not ask the name of the boy who came for me. I did 
not know Mr. Sutton, the surgeon. It is usual to bleed women 
that are in labour. 

Were you told that my lady was in labour? — I was not. 

Wlien you were there did you see anything like the sign of 
labour about her? — I did not. I cannot tell which arm I bled 
my lady in. She never asked me any questions as to whether 
it was safe to bleed her in the condition she was in. She just 
held out her arm by Mrs. Shiels' directions, and the blood 
was received in a pewter plate held by Mrs. Shiels. I do not 
remember whether my lady had her clothes on or not. The 
bedclothes weie up about her. To the best of my knowledge 
there were other three or four women in the room. I believe 
there was a surgeon at Ross, which is about 3 miles from 
Dunmaine. I have seen Mr. Sutton, the surgeon, but I can- 
not tell whether he lived at Ross. I cannot tell how much 
blood I took from my lady, as I just bled by guess. The mid- 
wife bade me not to take much blood. The lady I bled was 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

a handsome woman. She was not fair, but I could not say T. Brooks 
whether she was thin faced or round faced, because I did not 
take such great notice. I had been at Dunmaine previously to 
bleed some of the servants of the house. I never knew any 
other but myself to be employed there at that time. I cannot 
tell what year this was in, but, as far as I can remember, it 
was twenty-eight or twenty-nine years ago. I do not know 
whether I heard of Queen Anne's death or not. I saw Lady 
Altham in Dunmaine House both before and after the time 
that I bled her. To the best of my knowledge I am about 
forty-eight or forty-nine years old. 

How many years have you been a piece of a surgeon? — I 
cannot tell you that ; I believe smce I was about twenty years 
of age. Lady Altham was not the first person I ever bled. I 
cannot tell how many years I was practising before I bled her. 
I learned to bleed from one of the name of John Grimes. 

Can you name any person's name that you bled twenty or 
thirty years ago 1 — No ; I remember bleeding Mrs. Sutton some 
five or six years ago. I do not know how Mr. Annesley came 
to know that I ever bled Lady Altham. Somebody asked me 
at a fair whether I had bled her. 

Laurexch Misset, examined — I knew a person called Lord l. Misset 
Altham who lived in Kinnea, which is about 2i miles from 
where I now live. I believe he lived there about two years. 
I thinlc I was seventeen or eighteen years old then. I do 
not know whether he had a son at that time or not, but there 
was a school in the town where I now live, Dowdingstown, and 
a boy came to that school whom we took to be Lord Altham's 
son. I used to go to that school myself. It was a poor 
country school for poor farmers' children. The schoolmaster 
was called Bryan Connor. The boy that was called Lord 
Altham's son could not be less than six years old, and he 
remained at school for about a month. The schoolmaster 
was a papist, and was persecuted by a Protestant schoolmaster 
in the neighbourhood. I told Lord Altham that he was 
persecuted, and my father also spoke to him about the affair. 
He was asked to bani'^h the master that was perscciiting this 
poor man, and he said he would take another method, that 
he would send his son to school to him and then he believed 
by that means the other man would cease to persecute Rryan 
Connor. T do not know what year or month this was in. I 
believe I am about foity-two or forty-three years old now. 
I cannot tell how long Lord Altham was living at Kinnea 
before the son came to scliool. I believe the boy lodced some- 
where in the neighbourhood. I do not remember liirn liaving 
any person to attend to him. Lord Altham called three or 
four times for the boy at the school. I do not know l)y what 



The Annesley Case. 



L. Misset name my lord called the boy. He was generally known at 
school as the young Lord Altham. I used to go fishing with 
the schoolmaster near Lord Altham 's house. Lord Altham 
sent for us, and once came himself and brought us to his 
house, and we saw the boy there. The boy used to stay with 
us in the room, or Lord Altham would send for him. He 
always introduced him as his son, but I cannot tell what his 
name was. 

Did you apprehend at that time that he was the lawful son 
of Lord Altham? — I did not distinguish at that time what 
was the lawful or unlawful son, but he was my Lord Altham'a 
son. My Lord Altham used to call me by the name Larry, 
and he hoped I would see the boy Earl of Anglesea. The boy 
was reputed to be Lord Altham's son in the neighbourhood 
where I lived. 

By the Lord Chief Baron — I am certain that the boy I saw 
at Connor's school, and afterwards at Kinnea, was the boy 
called Lord Altham's son. I am sure he is the same boy that 
Lord Altham acknowledged to be his son. I am sure he is the 
same person that Lord Altham said to me that he hoped I 
would see the Earl of Anglesea. 

Cross-examined — I remember before my lord quitted Kinnea 
there was a report that Lady Altham had been away some 
time from my lord, and she got this son at that time. I 
could not say whether Mr. Annesley, who is now shown me 
in Court, is the same as I saw at Kinnea, it being so long ago. 
I never heard of Juggy Landy till this affair came to be talked 
of in public. The boy was never called by the name of 
Landy till recently. To the best of my knowledge, when the 
boy was at Connor's school he was clad in a coat and breeches, 
and he had an escalloped silver laced hat. He was a little 
boy, but I could not take him to be less than six years old. 
My own age was above sixteen, and by what I am told I am 
now forty-three years old. I cannot tell what time of the 
year it was that the child came first to school, but I think it 
must have been some time in spring, as it was in the season 
that my lord used to hunt. I was married in April, 1730. 
I cannot remember how many years I had left school before I 
was married. I remember to have heard talk of the South 
Sea year, the year 1720. I am sure I was not at Connor's 
school then. I went to France in the year 1723. I heard 
of the Rebellion of Preston, and also of the death of Queen 
Anne, but I cannot recollect how near that was to the time 
I saw the boy at Kinnea. I cannot tell whether I was 
eighteen years old when I saw the boy at Connor's. I was not 
married at that time, nor was I in any sort of business. 

Were you of an age to go to school with such a boyt — 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

There were many of three-and-twenty at that time went, for L. Misset 
there were but few schools thereabouts. 

Can you be positive that you were under twenty? — I cannot 
say what age I was. Lord Altham was very free with all the 
boys that used to hunt with his dogs, and I was acquainted 
with him in that way. 

Can you be certain that you were not eighteen, nineteen, 
twenty, or twenty-one at that time? — Upon my word, I cannot. 
I think I was above sixteen, but I cannot loe certain that I 
was above seventeen. After I left Connor's school I went to a 
place called Naas to learn mathematics, and I was there above 
a year. I did not go immediately afterwards to France. 

Did you go to France in two or three years after? — I cannot 
tell. I lived at home with my father before I went to France. 
I cannot tell how long I stayed at Connor's school after the 
child left it. 

Are you positive as to the fact you mentioned of having seen 
the boy with a silver laced hat that was called my Lord 
Altham's son? — I am, and I believe it was the first and last 
laced hat that ever was at that school. 

Are you sure that the boy that went to Connor's school and 
was brought to you in the room was called by my lord his son? 
- -I am. 

Are you certain that you were above sixteen? — If I could 
tell you my age to a minute I would do so, but I cannot say 
it. The reason of my saying that I was fifteen or about 
that was that I used to go to fish with the schoolmaster and 
to wade in the river, and I believe I should not be fond of 
doing so if I was not that age. If I had kno\\Ta I was to be 
asked about this matter I might have referred to some books 
and papers that I made use of at Connor's school and at the 
mathematical school. I do not know whether these are still 
in existence. 

James Walsh, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady James Walsh 
Altham. Owing to some dispute between them Lady Altham 
came to Ross, to the house of my stepfather, Mr. Richard 
Butler. As she appeared to be in some trouble my mother 
took the liljerty of asking what ailed her, upon which her 
ladyship said in my presence that she had a great deal of 
reason, for my lord used her ill. With that she sat down 
and shed a few tears, and she said that if it were not for two 
considerations her heart wo\ild break. The first was, her 
ladyship said, that she thanked God she had a very tender, 
indulgent father, the Duke of Buckingham, who would not 
abandon her in her affliction, and the other was that slio had 
a very f)romising young son, who, she trusted, if God would 
give him life, would be a support and prop to her in her 
I 113 



The Annesley Case. 

James Walsh old age. I cannot say that I ever saw that son, because I 
lived then about 6 miles from Koss, and I only came once a 
week or so to see my mother, who was married to Mr. 
Butler. 

Cross-examined — The conversation I have narrated hapT>enod 
about twenty-seven years ago. My mother and stepfather 
were present at the conversation ; they are dead. I am 
not sure whether Mrs. Shiels was present. This happened on 
a Sunday, I think, the very day that Lady Altham came from 
Dunmaine. It was never doubted that Lady Altham had a 
son. I do not know what became of the child. I heard 
that my lord had a child, and I heard from several credible 
people that it was nursed at Dunmaine. I was told that the 
child was brought to see his mother, Lady Altham, when he 
was two or three years old. I suppose he "was brought by his 
nurse, but I do not know who his nurse was. I do not know 
Juggy Landy. I was at the door when Lady Altham came 
to Ross ; to the best of my recollection she came in a single- 
horse chair. I fancy she had a waiting-maid when she was 
at my mother's house, and I believe that the name was Heath. 
I do not think Mrs. Heath was present when the conversation 
I have referred to passed between Lady Altham and my 
mother, but I cannot say, as it is so long ago. I often saw 
Lady Altham at Ross after that day, because she lived a con- 
siderable time in Mr. Butler's house. I have more than 
once heard her say that she thanked God she had a son who, 
she trusted, would be a comfort to her. She said that she 
was wronged, and that his lordship pleased to use her ill. Mr. 
Butler was at the door when my lady arrived, and he handed 
her out of the chair. I do not think I handed anybody out. 
I am certain that Lady Altham came before dinner" and dined 
with us that day. She did not go back to Dunmaine that 
night. I believe she stayed sonje months in Mr. Butler's 
house, and then she removed to one Wright's, to the best 
of my knowledge. I would be two or three days in Mr. 
Butler's house before she came. 

How came it that she was brought there? — I have two 
reasons. The first is that Mr. Butler had had the honour 
to be introfhiced to the Duke of Buckingham. Another reason 
was this, that my mother was intimately acquainted with my 
lady, and had a regard for her. Our usual time of dining 
was about one or two o'clock. Lady Altham came before 
dinner-time. 

r. Cavanagh Jambs Cavanagh, examined — I was acquainted with the 

late Lord Altham as a neighbour at Carrickduff, about the 

year 1721 or 1722, or thereabouts. He lived in his own house 

at Carrickduff, and we were neighbours for about a year and 

114 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

a half or t^o years. He had an only child that lived with J. Cavanagh 
him there that was then deemed his son, his name being James 
Annesley. I saw that son as often as I went there, maybe 
once a week or twice a week. He lived in the house with 
his father. I observed his father to be as tender and 
respectful of him as a parent should be to a child. I never 
heard Lord Altham speak about his son's mother, or say 
who was the mother. I never had reason to doubt his being 
a legitimate son ; I never heard his birth doubted. 

Did he pass in that neighbourhood for a son of my lord by 
his lady? — I never heard of his lady nor any tajk of her at all. 
One day my lord and I happened to discourse about the child, 
whom he had by the hand walking through the yard. I said 
that he was giowing a pretty sprightly boy, and I hoped he 
was improving in his learning, and Lord Altham said, " I have 
a person in the house to instruct him," and upon that he took 
an opportunity of saying "that he would one day or other 
be Earl of Anglesea." I heard that the boy went to school 
in the house to his tutor. I looked upon him to be eight or 
nine years old when Lord Altham left Carrickdufif. Lord 
Altham visited the gentry in the neighbourhood and carriod 
the child with him, particularly to my own house. The child 
was generally treated as my Lord Altham's son. I never 
saw the child after he left Carrickduff. 

Cross-examined — Did 30U not hear this child afterwards 
reputed to be a natural son of my Lord Altham's? — I never 
did till of late days till he came over to sue for this estate. I 
do not know anything about Lord Altham's parting with my 
lady. When the child came to Carrickduff in 1721 I took 
him to be about seven years old or thereabouts. I never 
heard any talk of his mother. I did not know Lord Altham 
before he came to Canickduff. We became great triends 
because I was his nearest neighbour. I cannot swear whether 
or not Lord Altham came to Carrickduff before the year 1721, 
nor can I say whether he came in the winter or summer. I 
do not know from what place he came, as I had not known him 
before, and I never troubled my head about that. I believe 
my lord visited Mr. Charles Byrne. I cannot say that I 
was ever in company with Lord Altliam in any gentleman's 
house in the neighbourhood. 

Did you ever see the child with my lord at any other 
person's house? — I have seen him at public meetings, but I 
do not remember positively that he carried him to any gentle- 
man's house in the neighbourhoo<^l. I often saw my lord 
and the boy going about public places. I have heard that 
my lord lived at a place called Monntaingrange, but I do not 
know about that myself. 



The Annesley Case. 



J. Dempsey James Dempskt, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham at 
Carrickduff, in the year 1721. I knew that he had a son 
then, because he sent one Mr. Thomas Owens for me to take 
care of the child. I believe Mr. Owens is now dead. I took 
cai-e of the child as my Lord Altham 'a child, and I was to 
have .£8 a year for doing so. I was to act as schoolmaster, 
and to live in the house. I lived in the house half a year, 
but being told it would be to my advantage to teach about 
the neighbourhood, I told my lord of it, and I desired to 
leave to teach his son abroad. He gave me leave provided I 
took care of the child and did not suffer him to get the itch 
or any distemper among the poor people's children. I set 
up a school at Bunclody. A servant was sent with the child 
every day. He was treated as my lord's son, and the common 
people called him " Tiern Oge," the young lord. My Lord 
Altham always introduced him to the gentlemen that came to 
his house as his lawful son. He had two or three suits, a 
suit of scarlet for State days, and when he went to school 
he wore a suit of brown fustian. He was in my care for about 
two years. As far as I understand, Lord Altham lived at 
CarrickduflE for two years and a half. I taught the boy to 
read English. He was seven or eight years old when I first 
went to him. About twelve months ago, as Mr. Annesley 
was returning from the County of Wexford to Dublin, in com- 
pany with Mr. Mackercher, they called at Hacketsto-wn in the 
County of Carlow, where I lived. Mr. MacKercher sent for 
me and asked if I knew any one in the company. I told him 
that I knew him perfectly well, Mr. Jemmy Annesley, who 
was under my care. I believe there were five or six gentle- 
men in the room, but I cannot say very well. I pitched 
upon Mr. Annesley because I knew him ; I knew his very 
face. I had not seen him fiom the time I saw him at 
Carrickduff. I cannot vsay whether he had had the smallpox 
when he was at Carrickduff. I had no idea that he was in 
the kingdom. I said, " This is Mr. James Annesley, if he 
be a living man," upon which he came over and kissed me 
and asked me how I did. 

Did he know who you were? — I believe he knew I was in 
the house, because they asked for me. 

Is that gentleman now in Court? — That is the gentleman 
(pointing to Mr. Annesley). By virtue of my oath that is 
the gentleman that my Lord Altham recommended to me 
as his lawful son to take care of. After Carrickduff I 
lived for some time in Dublin. I never saw the boy in 
Dublin, but I heard that he was in Dublin and that he was 
transported. 

To what place ? — I do not know ; to where people are 
generally transported. I had no conversation with Mr. 
ii6 




f 



_ ///////'/ r f/aC' A(''/( ///'/•(' ,w/,: 

Niliil liiiniiiiii a iiic iiliciuiiii hito. 

Daniel MacKercher 

(From II iiiezzi'linl portrait Ijy /Iroiiku). 



Evidence for PlaintifF. 

Annesley that day concerning any passages of his life. I J. Dempsey 

left Carrickduff before Lord Altham and went to a school in 

the Barony of Mullin, in the County of Carlow. I remained 

in the company of Mr. Annesley and the others for about an 

hour and a half. He did not mention one syllable about 

what had happened to him. He told me of some hardships 

that he had undergone, but no particulars. 

Cross-examined — I believe it will be about a twelve-month 
ago since I saw this young man at Hacketstown. I saw him 
at Mr. Lawrence Cullen's inn, where I had gone to take a 
beefsteak. I was not asked to go there. I had no know- 
ledge that these people were to be at Hacketstown that day, 
and they had no intimation from me. 

Did anybody bid you go there? — They did not; but I 
went to take a beefsteak in the morning. I live at a place 
called Bally mackowny, and I go to eat at Hacketstown. 

Mr. Mackercher sent for me. I never knew him before. 
There was a gentleman, Mr. Mark Owens, in Mr. Mackercher's 
company, who told Mr. Annesley that his tutor was in town, 
and would be very glad to see him. I had known Mark 
Owens for twenty-six years. He was generally at Carrick- 
duff at the time I instructed the son of Lord Altham. He 
dined once or twice every week with my lord, and he saw 
me attend the boy in the family. Mark Owens asked the 
woman in the house if I was there. I had not seen Mark 
Owens for about two years before that day, nor had I ever 
any discourse with him about Mr. Annesley. 

Upon your oath did you ever hear before this time that 
my Lord Altham 's son was living from any person whatso- 
ever? — I did not. 

Did you not hear that there was a man come over that 
said he was Lord Altham 's son? — Upon my oath I do not 
know whether I did or not. No person ever spoke to me 
about my Lord Altham's son. Mr. Mackercher asked me 
whether I knew any one in the company. He did not point 
to the man. I certainly knew Mark Owens. 

Why did you not point at him, then? — Because Mark 
Owens was out of the rank that was pointed at. 

Who were in that circle of people that were pointed at 
to yf)U? — All but Mark Owens, who opened the door and 
stood by the side of the door when I went in. I never 
knew Captain Levingston or Mr. Mackercher before. By 
his appearance Captain Ix'vingston could not be the boy 
that I tutored. Mr. Mackercher did not appear to be 
about the same age as the boy I tutored. I did not know 
for what pur[»oRe I had been sent there. 

What [)rofessi()n are you of? — I will tell you any other 
time you will please to ask me. I am about thirty-seven 

117 



The Annesley Case. 



J. Dempsey or thirty-eight. I waa not acquaint-ed with Lord Altham 
before I was employed as tutor to his son. Mr. Tliomas 
Owens, my father's landlord, recommended me to Lord Altham 
as a fit person. I believe I would be about eighteen yeara 
old, but I cannot exactly say. I was not twenty years old. 

Of what religion were you at that time? — I did not know 
much of any kind of religion at that time, but I have a better 
opinion now. I went to Mass. My parents were popish. 
While I lived in Lord Altham's house for six months I did 
not go to either church or Mass. Lord Altham had no know- 
ledge of my father and mother. He never asked what religion 
we were of. I was never asked whether I was a Protestant 
or not. I kept a school at Bunclody for about eight or ten 
months. 

Had you any other gentleman's child? — Never a gentleman's 
child, but Thomas Owens. I knew one Thompson Gregory, 
who lived at Carrickduff with Lord Altham the whole time I 
was there. Thompson Gregory saw the boy that I had care 
of in the house, but he never came to the school. I went 
away from Carrickduflf before my lord. 

Did he provide any other tutor in your place? — I was told 
he went to one Taaff, within half a mile of the place. 

Had he any tutor in the house for him? — No, he had not. 

Did you at any time after this take orders in any religion? 
— That is a question I am not obliged to answer. I have 
always been striving to have a very good notion of religion. I 
have lived in the parish of Hacketstown for the last three 
years. I believe that about half a year ago I had a conversa- 
tion with Mr. Francis Thornhill, gentleman to Mr. Paul, relat- 
ing to Mr. Annesley. That was after I had seen Mr. 
Mackercher at Hacketstown. I had never heard of Mr. Leving- 
ston or Mr. Mackercher before that time. I have not seen Mr. 
Mackercher since I was at Hacketstown till a week ago, and I 
had not seen Mark Owens till last Monday. I had no con- 
versation with him about the evidence I was to give. 

Had you with anybody else? — Yes, with several, what I 
could say. I told Mr. Mackercher at Hacketstown that I was 
teaching him for surh a time. " Can you swear to it? " says 
he, and I told him that I could. Mr. Annesley wore his own 
hair — flaxen hair — when he was at school with me. L cannot 
tell whether he has had the smallpox since. 

Did he wear his own hair or a wig when you saw him at 
Hacketstown? — Upon my word, I cannot well remember; let 
it be what it would, it was so tight that I cannot well tell 
whether it was his own hair or a wig, and it was not so very 
polite to gaze at a man. I knew him at the first glimpse. I 
went to school myself for about two or three years after I left 
Bunclody. My schoolmaster was one Hughes, and the first 
ii8 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 



book I was put to when I went to school was the Odes of J. Dempsey 
Horace. 

Charles Byrxe, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham at C. Byrne 
Carrickdufif in the year 1721 or 1722. I lived about 3 or 4 
miles away. My lord had a child, a youth, with him that he 
called his son. He was called Master Annesley, and was 
reputed to be my lord's son. I was frequently in the house, 
and I saw the boy there. He was brought up as his lordship's 
child. He was very fond of him seemingly. I knew Lord 
Altham there for more than a year. He visited at my house. 
I also saw him and his son at the house of one Mr. Redmonds. 
I have heard my lord mention the child as any father would 
in company. 

In what manner did my lord use to talk of this child, whether 
as a natural son or another? — If he was the best duke in 
England, and brought an unnatural son to my house, I should 
look upon it as the highest affront put upon me, and would 
despise his company and resent it as deserved. I always 
looked upon the boy as a lawful son, as my son is by my wife. 
I remember meeting Lord Altham at the house of Mr. Red- 
monds, when they drank the boy at dinner as Lord Anglesea, 
that he might live to be Lord Anglesea. Lord Altham thanked 
the company. I took the boy to be about seven years old or 
tliereabouts. He used to ride with my lord on a little horse 
that he had. He was dressed very gaily, with a feather in 
his hat. I never saw the boy from that time till about yester- 
day evening. I cannot take upon me to know him for certain. 
I could not pretend to know my own child at that distance 
of time. I do not know where Lord Altham went upon his 
leaving Carrickduff. Wlien I saw this gentleman last night 
I thought there was something struck me as if it was something 
like it, but to take it upon me to say it was the same I cannot. 

Cross-examined — Were you not introduced to him as Mr. 
Annesley? — To be sure. 

Had you met him at any other place or out of the kingdom 
would you have known him 1 — No more than I should have 
known the King of Morocco, had I not been told so. 

James Cavanaoh, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham j. cavanagii 
when he lived at Carrickduff about twenty-one or twenty-two 
years ago. I saw a child there about six or seven years old, 
whrim Lord Altham said was his son. He treated him as his 
child. The servants spoke about him as " Master " — I think 
" Master James " — but I won't be positive. 

Nicholas Dukfk, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham NicholasDuffe 
when he lodged in Cross Lane, Duljlin. about twenty-one years 

119 



The Annesley Case. 



Nicholas Duffe ago. 1 cannot say where he lived immediately before that 
time. Master James Annesley was with hira then, and he 
treated the child just as any lord or gentleman would treat 
his child. I am sure he was his own son. I kept a public- 
house then, and Lord Altham used to have his liquor from 
me. One day he said to me, " If I live to be Earl of Anglesea, 
this child will be Lord Altham." 

How came my lord to say this to you? — I drank and kept 
company with him several times. He was a very free and 
clever man. The boy went to a school in Frapper Lane kept 
by Mr. Daniel Carthy. My two sons went to school along with 
him. I saw my lord's servant, as they told me, going with 
the boy to school several times. He was in Lord Altham's 
livery, as near as I can remember. The child was called by 
the neighbours in Cross Lane, sometimes Lord Altham, some- 
times James, or Jemmy, or Master Annesley. I believe he 
would be about eight years of age when he went to school. 
He went to that school as long as he lived in Cross Lane. I 
do not think he lived a year there. Lord Altham was in no 
great circumstances at that time. I knew Miss Gregory very 
well, because she came several times to my house along with 
Betty Leicester. She lived with her mother, Mrs. Field, in 
Mr. Turner's house, the same house as my lord lived in. 
Betty Leicester lived in the opposite house. They came several 
times to my house and called for liquors. I was not much 
acquainted with Lord Altham's family. 

Was Miss Gregory a part of his family? — She was of that 
family — I do not say of his family — but she was in the house. 

Did you take this child to be the legitimate child of my 
lord? — No man in the world but took him to be h^'s child, 
and my lord did not say against it. My lord told me another 
time, " Duffe, you may see him Earl of Anglesea or Lord 
Altham," I do not know which. 

Cross-examined — I cannot tell how nearly Miss Gregory was 
related to Lord Altham. For all I know, she may have been 
called in the family my Lord Haversham's niece. The 
neighbours in Cross Lane were very honest people. 

Were there any gentlemen that kept a coach ? — No, but there 
were honest, substantial people, and people that could afford 
to lend a thousand pounds. Mr. Carthy kept a Latin school, 
and there were a great many responsible people's children that 
were there. Mr. Plunket, the brewer's son, went there. 

What are you? — I am a gentleman. 

Did you not carry a chair at that time? — What of that? 
I am a gentleman now. 

Were you not a common chairman in town? — I was so, but I 
paid everybody their own and did my business well. Before 
I carried a chair I was a farmer in the County of Meath. 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

Do you not keep Mr, Mackercher's door? Are you not his NieholasDuflf 
porter? — That is no question to be asked now. Could not I 
open your door? Is that any fault? I do open it sometimes. 

Are you not Mr. Mackercher's porter? — I am no porter. 
I sometimes attend his door to oblige Mr. Annesley or Mr. 
Mackercher. I receive no wages ; I am no hired servant. 
I came upon my own cost and charges from England here. I 
became acquainted with Mr. Mackercher in London, about 
a twelve-month ago. I heard of Mr. Annesley, and I knew him 
here when he was a child — I heard that he had returned from 
transportation, and I found that he was lodged at a Quaker's 
house, Mr. Henderson's. Mr. Mackercher told me where Mr. 
Annesley was. 

How came you in a year's time to contract such an acquaint- 
ance with Mr. Mackercher as to open his door? Have you 
ever received any civilities or good offices from him? — Never 
did. Civility ! Yes, he used me civilly. Mr. Mackercher's 
house stands in College Green, and the door upon the house 
is swept by a porter called Dogherty. I never sweep Mr. 
Mackercher's door. I cannot tell what Lord Altham's livery 
was when he was living in Cross Lane. I knew the servants 
by the livery then, but I cannot recollect it now. 

How long have you had the possession of that coat upon 
your back? — Since I bought it. 

How long ago was that? — Why, it was last spring. Why 
don't you ask me when I bought this wig? I was at one time 
a servant to Mr. MacCartney, but I wore my own clothes. I 
had a farm from Mr. Carter's father, for which I paid about 
£50 a year. 

What is the reason, and by whose directions is it, that you 
stand at Mr. Mackercher's door? — By my own directions, to 
divert me, for my own pleasure, for unless I did it I should go 
into an ale-house to drink. 

Catherine O'Neile, examined — I was employed by the late C. ONelie 
Lord Altham to take care of his son at Carrickduff about 
twenty-two or twenty-three years ago. I waited on him for a 
year there, and then I took him to Cross Lane, Dublin, and 
left him there. His name was James Annesley. He was 
reputed and treated as my lord and lady's son. Mistress 
Nellie Gregory live<l at Carrickduff, and my lord treated her as 
a relation and cousin. 

How did he treat her afterwards when they came to Dul)lin? 
— I did not live with them ; she lived with him as a bod- 
companion. I saw the child's birthnight kept in Carrickduff. 
There were bonfires and rejoicings made on that occasion ; 
the neighbours all gathered there, and there was merriment. 

Where was my Lady Altham at the time of Lord Altham 



The Annesley Case. 



C. ONelle being at Carrickduff / — At the tirst of his coming there she was 
in Ross, and afterwards she removed to Dublin. When the child 
camo to Dublin he was over eight years old. About half a 
year after I left him in Cross Lane he came to see me in James's 
Street, Dublin. Lady Altham was in Stable Lane while my 
lord was in Cross Lane. I do not know whether Master 
Annesley went to school. When he came to me in James's 
Street he asked me to apply to my lord for subsistence. He 
was in a very indifferent condition as to dress. To the beat 
of my knowledge he was sent to board at Mrs. Cooper's, in 
Ship Street. After that his father lived at Inchicore, and to 
the best of my knowledge the boy lived at Mrs. Cooper's. I 
did not know her. I asked my lord how he came to part with 
the boy, and he said he had got some vicious tricks and that 
till he could break him off these vicious tricks he would keep 
liim in that way. Mrs. Gregory was then at Inchicore. I 
went there several times, because my husband was a servant 
to my lord. I spoke to my lord of my own motion. I asked 
him whether he had made any provision for the child, and 
he told me that he paid for his diet to Mrs. Cooper, and that 
Mrs. Cooper had complained that the boy was guilty of bad 
tricks. Upon that I told my lord that it was nothing but a 
contrivance of Miss Gregory and Mrs. Cooper to get rid of 
the child. My lord said that whether he was guilty of those 
actions or not he would show him no countenance. He said 
there was no peace in the house while he was there, because 
Miss Gregory did not love the child, and that he would fain 
keep peace for a while, and when some little jealousies were 
over he would take him again and give him a subsistence. I 
sometimes used to go to Lord Altham's, where my husband 
was still a servant. After I left the child at Dublin I went 
back to Carrickduff and stayed there for about half a year, 
and then I came to Dublin. Lord Altham then lived in 
Inchicore, but I heard he lived in Frapper Lane before he went 
to Inchicore. 

You said that my lord said there was some little jealousies. 
Tell them ? — I cannot tell as for that, but because Miss Gregory 
did not love the child. I cannot tell how long it was that 
Master Annesley lodged at Mrs. Cooper's. Lady Altham once 
sent a servant for me at James's Street, after I had delivered 
Master Annesley to my lord in Cross Lane. I was brought 
into her chamber at Stable Lane, and she asked me how Miss 
Gregory behaved when she went to my lord in the County of 
Carlow. I answered that she behaved mighty well as a rela- 
tion and was very fond of the child. She asked me how she 
behaved when she came to Dublin, and I said that I could not 
tell, V;ut that by report she di<l not like Master Annesley. Lady 
Altham called the child Jemmy Annesley. She sent a letter 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

by me to one Mrs. Weedon about the child. Mrs. Weedon was C. O'Nelle 

a servant that came out of England with the family first, and 

she lived with Miss Gregory's mother in Stonybatter. I 

cannot tell whether Mrs. Weedon is living or dead. I cannot 

read. Mr. Weedon had a child, William, who stayed in 

Carrickduff, and was Master Jemmy's companion. My lady 

said that she was very desirous to see her child, but she 

knew if any of the servants brought him to her it would be a 

means of turning them out of their bread. I remember when 

my Lord Altham died. I never saw the present Earl of 

Anglesea to my knowledge. When my lady said that she 

would l>e glad to see the child he was not at liberty to go where 

he would. He came of himself to me at St. James's Street. 

I believe he was living at Mrs. Cooper's when my lady said 

this to me. It will be about eighteen or nineteen years ago 

since I saw the child in James's Street. I asked him if he 

ever went to see his mother, and when he told me that he did 

not I asked him the reason, and he said that he was in such 

a condition that he was ashamed, and if my lord should hear of 

it he would banish him for ever. I would know the child if 

I saw him again. I saw him a little before Christmas a year 

ago, and I knew who he was. 

Look about the Court and see if you know him? — That is he 
(pointing to Mr. Annesley). 

Cross-examined — When Master Annesley applied to me in 
James's Street he was in a low condition, wanting clothes. I 
cannot tell whether he wanted meat and drink. He came to 
me in St. James's Street two or three times. 

Do you know whether Lady Altham ever saw him? — I cannot 
tell any more concerning it. Master Annesley came to me 
about a week or a fortnight after I came to James's Street. 
I think I was in James's Street for about a week or a fortnight 
when Lady Altham sent for me. She was of a swarthy, dark 
complexion, and had brown hair of a dark colour. I did not 
take the son to her, because I was afraid of my lord. When 
my lord spoke about giving him a subsistence, I understood 
that he would take him back again to the house. The boy 
did not wish to go back to his mother, because he was not 
in order. I told him that I had seen his mother, and I asked 
him to go to her. He had shoes and stockings on, but his 
clothing did not look like that of a gentleman's child. He 
did not look as if he had been well fed. ^NTien at Carrickduff 
the Ixiy went to James Dempscy's school at Bunclody. 

Jon.v Byrne, examined — I have seen the late Lord Altham, John Byrne 
but I was not acquainted with him intimutely. He live<l in 
Frapper Lane, Dublin, for a short time some nineteen years 
ago. I was toUl that ho kept a young lady there, and had 

123 



The Annesley Case. 



John Byrne a little boy that they called Master James, that I very often 
used to see in the lane. I never spoke to Lord Altham about 
that boy. When Lord Altham left Frapjjer Lane 1 believe the 
boy was left behind. I believe that it was the very same boy 
that now appears here as a man. He was generally reputed 
to be my Lord Altham's son and heir. I very often saw him 
playing with a son of mine. I verily believe that this gentle- 
man is the boy that I have talked of. I say so from the recol- 
lection I have of his physiognomy. I believe he was eight 
or nine years old then. I believe that the gentleman I point 
to (pointing to Mr. Annesley) is the boy. 

Cross-ezamined — I cannot tell where Lord Altham went to 
from Frapper Lane, but I was told that he had taken some 
place in the country. I saw the boy in Frapper Lane after 
my lord had left. 

Did you not see him at some distance of time after in 
ragged clothes about the street? — I never saw him after the 
year 1724, and he was then in very indifferent apparel. I did 
not hear that my lord had turned him out of doors, but I 
heard that there was some disagreement between the boy and 
Miss Gregory, and that the boy quitted the house. I could 
not say whether he ever lay in my hay loft. I was told that 
my son in a great measure supported him. 

Do you believe that he was turned off by my lord 1 — I cannot 
frame any belief whether he was or not. I cannot tell whether 
Lord Altham left any servants in the house when he went to 
the country. I believe the house belonged to Captain Simpson. 
I do not know who lived in the house when my lord left it. 

Charity Blake Mrs. Charity Blake, examined — I never knew of my Lady 
Altham being with child. I was acquainted with her in the 
year the Pretender was in Scotland. I was often in her com- 
pany when she lived at Temple Bar and Essex Street. I saw 
Lord Altham about thirty years ago. My maiden name was 
Annesley, and I believe that Lord Altham and I were cousin- 
german's children. I never heard of my lady's having had a 
child. 

Did you hear of my lady's ever having a child? — I did. 

Did you ever hear from my Lady Altham that she had a 
child? — Never, but from common fame that she had a child. 
I never knew Lady Altham after she left Temple Bar, because 
I was married and went far into the country, and never kept 
up any correspondence with her. I never heard that she 
miscarried. 

Cioss-examined — Do you not believe that if Lord and Lady 
Altham had had a child you would have been acquainted 
with it? — I think I should. I never heard any mention of her 
being with child by my lord. 

124 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 



Third Day, Monday, 14th November, 1743. 

Edward Lutwich, examined — I was a trooper in Brigadier E. Lutwlch 
Napier's regiment, and was quartered in Ross the summer 
before the war was proclaimed against Spain, in the year 1717 
or 1718. I knew Lady Altham, then at Eoss. I was a shoe- 
maker to trade, and I was recommended to her to make a pair 
of shoes and slippers of white damask. I went to her lodgings 
at one Mrs. Wright's in connection with these shoes, and I 
found that she had a child with her about three years old. 
She asked me to make a pair of shoes for her child, which I 
did. Two days after they were made I came home with them 
and asked if the young lord was within to fit the shoes on, 
and the maid answered that my lady was within, but that the 
child had gone away the morning before. I saw my lady, 
and when she was paying me for the shoes she said, " I am 
paying for these shoes, but I do not know whether they will 
fit or no, for I had better been the wife of the poorest trades- 
man in Ross than my Lord Altham's, for then I could see my 
child every day, but now I can see him but by stealth." I 
cannot tell where the child came from. The child was clothed 
as became a person of quality's child. 

Cross-examined — I was a trooper in Brigadier Napier's 
regiment. 

Name the officers of your troop? — There were Brigadier 
Napier, Lieutenant Buckland, Cornet Ormsby, and Quarter- 
master Ford. There was another troop quartered in the town, 
and Mr. Langton was their quartermaster. I was twice at 
least at Lady Altham's about the shoes. She lodged in 
Wright's house, which was a good distance away from the 
church. I was in Ross for about nine or ten months. Wright 
kept a private house. When I first went to my lady the child 
was not there. I cannot name any person that I saw there at 
that time. 

Was there any slioemaker lived in the town of Ross? — To be 
sure there was. My lady came into the parlour, and I took off 
her shoe and took her measure. She gave me the damask to 
make the shoes with. When I came back on the second occa- 
sion the child was in the parlour along with my lady. I judged 
him to l>e three years old. There was a woman along with 
her, but I did not know her name. I do not know whether 
the child lay in her house or not. It was quite common know- 
ledge that my lady was sef)arate<l from my lord. T have not 
been at IV)RS since I left it with tlio troop. I live now in 
London, with a pension. 

How long have you l)een ac(|uaiiitcd witli Mr. Mackorchcr? 
• — After the trial of this young nobleman the story went about 

125 



The Annesley Case. 



E. Lutwlch that he was a {)retcnder and a bastard, and 1 said, " Upon 
my soul, I believe if ever my mother had a son my Lady 
Altham had one," and that he was the son of Lady Altham. 
I had no reason in the world for thinking so besides the meet- 
ing at Ross. I thought that my lady would not own an 
impostor. 

Could you be positive at this distance of time whether ray 
lady said, " make the shoes for 'this child ' or ' my child "I " 
— I cannot be positive at this time, but by vitrue of my oath 
to the best of my knowledge it was " for my child." 

B. Furlong BARTHOLOMEW FuRLONQ, examined — I knew my Lord and Lady 
AJtham about thirty years ago. At that time I used to buy 
corn for the merchants of Ross. When I got to know Lord 
Altham he used to send to me to buy him bacon, cheese, 
butter, and what the house wanted. About a year and a half 
afterwards I went to Dunmaine with some bacon, and I per- 
ceived that my Lady Altham was with child. It was the com- 
mon report of the neighbourhood that she was ready to lie in. 
Upon this I went to Pierce Sutton, who was intimate with my 
lord, and desired him to apply for the nursing for my wife. 
He told me that Captain Tench was more intimate with my 
lord than he was, and upon that I went to Captain Tench, and 
he gave me a letter to my lord. I gave it to him, and he 
said to my lady, " Here is a letter from Captain Tench desir- 
ing you to give your nursing to this man's wife." She asked 
me if my wife was a young woman, and I told her she was. 
She said that whoever was to nurse her child was to live in 
Dunmaine, because she must see it every day. My lord said 
that he would give me £6 in money and build me a house in 
Dunmaine, and my lady said she would give 208. more. I 
sent my wife there to see my lady. My wife told me after- 
wards that Dr. Brown had been to see her milk, but at that 
time the child she had upon her breast was taken ill and the 
milk was so disturbed that the doctor did not like it. I then 
went to Dunmaine House after that, and my lady said that she 
was sorry that Dr. Brown told her that my wife was not fit 
for the purpose. I heard from the neighbours that my lady 
was brought to bed of a son. About a year and a half after 
that I was at Dunmaine on some business for my lord, and 
there was a woman came to the house with some chickens. 
My lady had a child in leading .strings, about a year and a 
half child, and the child cried for the chickens. This was a 
male child, and my lord called him Jemmy. 

Cross-examined — 1 am fifty - five years old, and have been 

married for thirty-three years. I have four children alive and 

two dead. The child that I had when my wife applied for the 

nursing is still alive. His name is Michael, and to the best 

126 



Evidence for PlaintifF. 

of my knowledge he is either twenty-eight or twenty-nine. He B. Furlong 
was born in April or the beginning of May. My wife had been 
brought to bed about two months before I applied for the 
nursing. 

Was it the harvest time that you applied? — No, it must have 
been either April or March. 

When was the time you applied for the nursing? — Indeed, 
to the best of my knowledge, it was either in February or 
March that I applied for the nursing. 

Then I ask you again what time of the year was this son 
of yours born? — Upon my word, I cannot well tell; but it was 
some time before that, before February and March. 

Were the trees budding when your son was bom? — No, the 
trees, I believe — let me recollect myself — my son was born in 
April or May, but it was not passing a fortnight or three weeks 
before that my lady was brought to bed. 

What time of the year did you apply for the nursing ? — I can 
give no further account, but I would say that it was in 
February or March. I believe that my son must have been 
one month or over when I applied. My lady was taller than 
my lord. She was a tall, black woman, with a good com- 
plexion. 

Do you know what a good complexion is? — As near as I 
can describe it, she looked well in the face. She was fair, 
but not so good a fair as other women were ; she was a good- 
complexioned woman. My wife is living. 

What kind of complexion has your wife? — Pugh I she is a 
brown woman. 

Had my lady a brown complexion? — Yes. 

Was she as brown as your wife? — She was not of one colour 
with my wife to be sure. 

Which did you think the handsomer woman, my Lady 
Altham or your wife? — I thought that Lady Altham was fifty 
times beyond her, but my wife was more pleasing to me — 
she was better coloured formerly than she is now. Dr. Brown 
died a good many years ago. Uj)on my oath I made the agree- 
ment for the nursing with both my lord and lady together, 
and my lady gave me an English half-crown in earnest for it 
out of her own hand. Captain Tench is dead. When the 
chicken ran away from the child the child cried, and my lord 
said, "Jemmy, Jemmy, don't ciy." 

The Right Honourable Hugh Montgomery, Earl of Mount f?fj °*^j'^°""'' 
Alkxander, examined — I knew the late I/ord Altham. One 
night I was eating oysters with him and Captain Crow, and my 
lord said, " By Cod, Crow, my wife has got a son, which will 
make that rake my brother's nose swell." Whether it was so 
or not I cannot tell, but that is what he said. I cannot tell 

127 



The Amiesley Case. 



Earl of Mount how long ago that was. 1 give my honour and oath that 
Lord Altham said these words at one Sprig's house, upon the 
Glibb in Dublin. I cannot tell how long it was before Lady 
Altham died. I do not know whether my lord and lady 
lived separately then oi- not. I cannot tell whether it was 
since Queen Anne died. 

Cross-examined — I never heard that Lord Altham had a 
bastard son. I was pretty often with Lord Altham drinking 
a bottle of wine. I never heard anything of a separation 
between him and his lady. I never visited him in my life. 
We used to meet at the house on the Glibb to drink ale and eat 
oysters. I never heard before that there was any child. I 
was very often in company with my Lord Altham before this. 

M. Hodgers Margaret Hodqers, examined — I knew Lord Altham, and 
had the honour of seeing Lady Altham once at Mr. King's, the 
apothecary's, in Charles Street, in the year 1723. Li that 
year I had lodgings to let in Ormond Quay. A man came to 
see if I would board and lodge a lady and her woman. I 
agreed to do so, and the man fetched Lady Altham's woman. 
She liked the lodgings very well, and she and the man agreed 
with me to board my Lady Altham and her woman for £60 
or £70 a year. I do not know the name of the man that came 
to take the lodgings, but he lived in Mountrath Street. He 
gave me a pistole earnest. Next morning the man that had 
taken the lodgings came and told me that he was sorry that my 
lady could not come to lodge with me because the doctors 
thought that the quay would not be good for her health, and 
upon that I gave him back the pistole. About a fortnight 
after I met an acquaintance, Mrs. Lloyd, to whom I told the 
story, and she said that I was a fool for giving back the 
earnest, and she advised me to wait on my lady myself and 
acquaint her how I had been served, and to ask if it was with 
her ladyship's knowledge. I accordingly went to my lady, in 
Charles Stieet. I found her sitting, being in a weak condition 
in her limbs. I begged her pardon for being so rude as to 
come to her, but I said that I thought that I was dealt with 
unkindly. I told her ladyship that I was her countrywoman, 
and she said, " I wish I had never seen Ireland, and I wish you 
better luck in it than I have had, for there has been an unhappy 
quarrel between my lord and me, and he has aspersed me in 
my character." I asked her if she had any children, and she 
said that she had a son. I then took leave of her. and I have 
not seen her again. I know that it was my Lady Altham, 
because they called her so. Her maid's name went by the 
name of Heath. This happened in the year 1723. 

Cross-examined — I came over to Ireland in 1720 or 1721. 
I live within half a mile of my Lord Howth. I never dined 
128 



Evidence for PlaintifF. 

with my Lady Altham. I cannot give an account of any M. IIod»et>s( 
person present at the time of my conversation with my lady. 
Her woman was in and out of the room, but she had more 
manners than to stay at the conversation. My lady told me 
that she had a son, and gave a sigh when she said that, and 
seemed to be in trouble. 

Upon your oath can you take upon you to say that it was 
Lady Altham that was there? — They called her so, and I know 
no more upon the oath I have taken. My lady looked sickly, 
and I think she was of a swarthy complexion, with dark brown 
hair. I cannot tell what height she was, because she was 
sitting. 

Thomas Btrne, examined — I saw the late Lord Altham Thomas Byrne 
several times in Frapper Lane about nineteen or twenty years 
ago. He left Frapper Lane in 1724. He had a child that was 
reputed to be his son. We were boys in the same street, and 
played every day together. I believe Lord Altham lived for 
about a year in that street. I remember that because my 
father, who had been in a bad state of health and had gone 
to live in the country, came back to town, and I was taken 
from school and put into his business to take care of it. 
While my father was in the country I lodged in Frapper Lane, 
and went to school in the Cloysters. Lord Altham's boy went 
to Carthy's scl ool in Frapper Lane. The boy lived in the 
house in Frapper Lane along with Lord Altham while he was 
attending school. I actually saw him and Lord Altham 
together once, and that was when we were playing at the door, 
and my lord called him in, saying, " Jemmy, come in, and 
bring in Master Byrne with you." We went in, and my lord 
brought us into the parlour. In about half a minute he was 
called out by somebody, and I saw no more of him at that 
time. After Lord Altham left Frapper Lane the boy remained 
in the house for about five or six days, and then he came to 
take his leave of me, and told me that he was going with one 
Mr. Cavanagh, a dancing master, who was going to put him 
out to board and to school. I believe the boy would be about 
ten years old when Lord Altham left Frapper Lane. A good 
many months after that he came back to me and told me that 
he had been very ill-used and that he would stay no longer 
where he was, that he had gone from his lodgings in Ship 
Street to Mr. Cavanagh, who had turned him out. I advised 
him to go to his father, Lord Altham, who, I heard, was living 
then at Inchicore. He told me he would not go there, because 
there was one Miss Gregory who wf)ul<l never let him rest. An 
I could not persuade the boy to go to Inchicore, I asked him 
to stay with nie, and he did so for about five or six weeks. 
When I could have him he lay with me, and at other times he 
K 129 



The Annesley Case. 



Thom««Byrne was obliged to lie in the hayloft. I gave him meat and drink 
because of the friendship that was between us, we having been 
phiyfellows and living in the same street so long. My father 
did not know of it. During these five or six weeks that the 
boy was with me I do not believe that Lord Altham knew 
where he was. The boy got tired of that manner of living, 
and said that he would go home to his father at Inchicore. I 
do not know what became of him afterwards otherwise than 
by hearsay. When he first came to his father's house in 
Frapper Lane he was very well clad ; he had scarlet clothes. 
All the genteel boys in the street were playfellows of him and 
me. I can remember, among others, the son of Captain 
Eames, a brewer; two sons of Robin Byrne, a brewer; the son 
of Reilly, a brewer, and two sons of Reilly, at whose house I 
lodged. 

I never saw the boy again till he came from the West Indies. 
About a yeai' ogo Mr. Matthews, who was formerly 
a brewer, met me at the Globe Coffee-house one morning and 
asked me if I would dine with him the next day. I was sur- 
prised, because he had never invited me to dine with him 
before. Next day Mr. Matthews sent for a coach, and he, my 
father, and I got into it. Instead of our going to Mr. 
Matthews' house on Usher's Quay, he ordered the coach to 
drive to Jervis Street. We stopped at the house of Moore, 
the apothecary. We were shown upstairs into a dining-room, 
and Mr. Mackercher, whom I had never seen before, came 
into the room and saluted us all very complacently and civilly. 
My father and Mr. Matthews seemed to know him very well. 
Immediately afterwards three other gentlemen came into the 
room, and Mr. Matthews asked me if I knew any of the gentle- 
men's faces. I looked for some time at them. I knew Mr. 
Annesley 's face perfectly well, and I told him that I knew his 
face very well, that he was the same person that was in Lord 
Altham's house in Frapper Lane. I knew that Mr. Annesley 
had returned to Ireland, but this was the first time I had seen 
him after his return. I had no conversation with my father 
before this about his coming over. I believe Mr. Annesley 
had not been here above two or three days. I did not know 
he lodged at Jervis Street, but I had some idea of it when I 
heard the coachman directed thither. I had heard Mr. 
Matthews say in the coffee-house that he had come over with 
Mr. Annesley, and I was also told at the coffee-house that Mr. 
Matthews and Mr. Annesley had been at " The Bear," in 
Crane Lane, and sent a messenger for me, that they wanted 
to see me. I never saw the other gentleman who came into 
the room with Mr. Annesley before that time. 

Did you say whether you had any remembrance of the boy 
that was your playfellow, and whether you knew him again? 

130 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

— I knew him as perfectly as anybody in the world. That is Thomas Byra© 
he (pointing to Mr. Annesley) — that is the very person that I 
played with. 

Cross-examined — I am thirty-four years old next January, 
and I was about thirteen or fourteen when I saw Lord Altham 
in Frapper Lane nineteen or twenty years ago. 

What family liad my lord there? — There were Miss Gregory, 
a very genteel, pretty woman, her mother, and servants, and 
the boy, my Lord Altham's son. I don't know what Miss 
Gregory's name was. The boy was looked upon as Lord 
Altham's son by everybody in the street and neighbourhood. 
Carthy's school, to which the boy went, was both a Latin and 
an English one. I cannot tell of what religion Carthy was. 
I believe a great many good people's children went to his 
school, but the school in the Cloysters to which I went was by 
far the more reputable one. I was only once in Lord Altham's 
house, as I have told in my examination. That was the only 
occasion on which I saw the boy in Lord Altham's company. 
He was two or three years younger than I was. Wlien I 
advised the boy afterwards to go to Inchicore and he refused, 
I did not know that he had a mother alive, but I heard that 
he was a son of Lord Altham's. I heard that my Lord 
Altham's lady was his mother. I never heard him about that 
time reputed to be the bastard child of Lord Altham. 

Michael Waldkon, examined — I am an attorney of this M. Waldpon 
Court. I think I have seen the late Lord Altham. I went to 
Barnaby Dunn's school in Warburgh Street, and there was a 
young gentleman there that went under the title of Lord 
Altham's son. 1 believe I am about thirty years old now, 
and I think I was ten or eleven or twelve when I was at this 
school. I was just beginning my grammar. I went to Dunn's 
school for two years, and the young gentleman was there for 
six or eight months. I don't know who came to visit him. I 
heard that he lodged in Ship Street at that time. He was 
called "the young Lord Altham" by his schoolfellows, and 
particularly by Mr. Cavanagh, the dancing master's son. I 
heard the schoolmaster say one day that, if he was a duke's 
son, let alone a lord's son, he would correct him. I used to 
go to Mr. Cavanagh's dancing school to take care of my sister, 
and I saw this same young gentleman at that school, but 
whether he was a scholar there or no I cannot tell. 

Did you ever see him since he came to Ireland? — Yes, several 
times. I saw the gentleman that is now reputed to be the son, 
but whether he be the one that went to school with me T cannot 
say, because I cannot remember his features. I never saw 
him after he went to school with me, except at Cavanagh's 
dancing school. 

131 



The Annesley Case. 



M. Waidron Cross-examined — I was introduced into his company to know 
whether I could recollect him as Mr. Annesley. 

Were you asked whether you knew himl — I was not asked 
that. Indeed, 1 introduced myself. I told a good many 
gentlemen in town that I went to school with him, and they 
told me that it was only doing justice to let him know that, 
and so I went to his lodgings, but I don't pretend to remember 
him now. 

B. Dunn Barnabt Dunn, examined — In the year 1724 I kept a school 
in Bluecoat Alley, near the Main Guard, and Master James 
Annesley was recommended to me as Lord Altham's son by 
Mr. James Cavanagh, a dancing master. I believe he was at 
school with me for eight or nine months. No one came to see 
him except Mr. Cavanagh. When Mr. Cavanagh gave me a 
charge of him he said, " Here's a young gentleman I bring to 
you, and as yoa regard me I desire you'll take care of him; 
he's Lord Altham's son." I was introduced to Lord Altham 
at Mr. Cavanagh's, in Copper Alley, and, after we had drank 
together, he said, " You are recommended to me as a discreet, 
sober man, and an instructor of youth; I have now sent my 
son or child to you, and desire you'll take care of him, and you 
shall be rewarded." Mr. Michael Waidron, the attorney, wrote 
me a letter to come up to Dublin without delay, and in conse- 
quence of that I called on him, and he kissed me and said I 
was welcome. He asked if I did not remember one Master 
Annesley that went to school with me, and I said that I did, 
and that he, Mr. Waidron, was at school at the same time. 
We then both went to College Green, where I believe Mr. 
Annesley now lodges. There were some other gentlemen in 
the room to which we were taken, and then he came out of 
another room, and I apprehended he was the man. I believe 
Mr. Mackercher came in along with him. When I looked 
upon his face I knew him, because I took particular notice of 
something about his eyes when he came to my school, when 
he was about ten or twelve years old. I thought I observed a 
little cast or turn in his eye. That is he (pointing to Mr. 
Annesley). I know him very well. I know I am on my oath. 

Can you take upon you to say that he is the person that you 
knew when a boy? — I can, by virtue of my oath; if I was a 
dying man I could safely swear that I knew him to be the 
same person. 

Cross-examined — I instructed Lord Kingsland that now is 
and his brother at Lady Kingsland's house in Queen Street for 
about five or six years. I have a copy of a note in which my 
lady directed her agent to pay some money that was due me. 
That note is dated 21st September, 1724. The child I have 
been talking about came to me some time before that note. 
132 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

T believe he came about the month of July, and I entered him B. Dunn 
in my book by the name of Master James Annesley. I lost 
that book with the rest of my papers when I went into the 
country to instruct other gentlemen's children. I think he 
stayed with me till the Easter following. I spoke to Mr. 
Cavanagh about being paid for taking care of him, and he 
told me that after some little time my lord would have money 
enough, and that I should then be paid for him; but I never 
was paid. The boy absented himself from school, and I was 
told that he lodged in a house in Ship Street. I inquired of the 
landlady whether such a child lived in that house, but I did not 
see him. I was going to punish him afterAvards, and told him 
he took too great a privilege, and I said, " Were you a duke's 
child and sent to me for a scholar, and were you my Lord 
Anglesea himself, I would punish you."' I cannot remember 
whether I taught him any Latin, but I am certain that I taught 
him to read and write. I found that he had been at some 
other schools before he came to my school. As far as I could 
judge, he appeared to me to be between nine and eleven years 
of age. 

Did any servant use to attend him at your school? — Yes, there 
came a servant, some sort of a footman, along with him, some- 
times in bluish clothes. He did not come with him constantly; 
indeed, I cannot tell what attendance he gave, but I know there 
came once or twice a servant to inquire for him. 

Thomas Btrnb, recalled by the Court — I believe it was in Thomas Byrne 
the beginning of summer of 1724, in May or thereabouts, that 
my Lord Altham left Frapper Lane for a few days when he 
told me Mr. Cavanagh, the dancing master, was taking him 
to board and school. I cannot say that he and I ever went to 
swim together, nor can I say that I ever saw him naked. He 
came to live with me some time after October, and I believe 
before Christmas. My father came back from the country in 
October, and it was very soon after that. The boy did not 
go to school at that time, nor did L We were generally 
together, passing in and out of the ward. He miglit be absent 
two or three hour.« at a time, but he was not regularly absent. 

Patrick Plunket, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham P. Piunket 
when he lived in Frapper Lane, the next house but one to my 
father's, in the year 1723. When he came to Frapper Lane 
he had a pack of hounds, and I used to go out hunting with 
him. I went very often into his house and drank with him. 
He had a child called James Annesley, and I have seen my 
lord speak to hirn several times. He called him " Jemmy." 
Miss Gregory often used to complain to my lord of the child, 
and I twice c)r thrice interceded an<l got a pardon for him. 

>33 



The Annesley Case. 



p. Plunket She perliaps told my lord that he told lies or " mitched " from 
school, or such frivolous things. Miss Gregory called him 
Jemmy. I never heard either Miss Gregory or Lord Altham 
say that he was my lord's sou, but I have heard the servants 
eay that he was my lord's son. 

In what manner did my lord treat him? — All the knowledge 
that I have is this, that Miss Gregory made complaints to my 
lord of him, and I interceded with my lord to excuse him, and 
said, " I hope you will pardon Master James this time, and he'll 
not do so again." 

From your observation of my lord's behaviour and Miss 
Gregory's, did you or did you not understand that the child 
was a relation of my lord's? — I understood by Miss Gregory's 
behaviour that she had no great inclination for the child. 
Miss Gregory was a relation of my lord, and she managed 
the house as housekeeper. I interceded for the boy because I 
saw that my lord was going to beat him. 

In what manner did my lord behave; how did he express 
himself? — He was harsh. The general reputation of the neigh- 
bourhood was that the boy was my Lord Altham's lawful son. 
I never heard any question of the least suspicion of his being 
deemed a bastard until after Admiral Vernon sent him home 
to England. 

How do you know Admiral Vernon sent him home? — ^The 
present Lady Anglesea that lives in Frapper Street sent to an 
alehouse to know if there were any neighbours that knew the 
late Lord Altham. On being informed, that I knew him, she 
sent for me about May, a twelvemonth ago. I told her that I 
knew the late Lord AJtham, and was often in his house. She 
asked me if I remembered a boy, a bastard son of his, that was 
in the house, and I said, " I never heard of any bastard son 
that lived in the house ; but, to the best of my knowledge, T 
knew a very pretty little boy called James Annesley, who wap 
deemed my lord's lawful son." My lady then said, " That was 
the boy who was my Lord Altham's bastard son, and," says 
she, " I could take on me to say that he was bastard son to 
my unfortunate lord." I never saw this gentleman from April 
or May, 1724, till, I believe, October, a twelvemonth ago, when 
I saw him in a house where he lodged near St. Mary's Church. 
There was one Mr. Cook, a linen draper, who told me that 
there was a gentleman, Mr. Annesley, who had come over, and 
he asked me how long I had lived in Frapper Lane. I told 
him that I had lived there about twenty-six years. He then 
said, " There is a son of Lord Altham's come here to claim the 
Anglesea estate." I asked if it was Jemmy Annesley, and he 
said it was. I then said that I knew him very well, because 
he went to school in my father's yard to one Carthy, a school- 

134 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

master. He asked me if I would know him again, and, after P. Plunket 
considering whether I should know him, I said, " I would hold 
a dozen of wine I know him the first moment I saw him." I 
believe there were a dozen gentlemen in the room when I went 
in, and I immediately went over to him and took him by the 
hand and said, " This is Mr. Annesley who went to school in 
Frapper Lane." I never heard of him before Mr. Cook came 
to me, and I had no conversation about Mr. Annesley with any- 
body but with Mr. Cook. The room in which I saw Mr. 
Annesley was a large parlour, and there were many people about 
the table with him drinking. When I went into the room a 
gentleman received me at the door. Mr. Cook went into 
the room at the same time, or he stood at the door, I cannot be 
positive. The candles were either lighting or just lighted. I 
looked round the room, and went over and took Mr. Annesley 
by the hand, and said that he was welcome to Ireland. 

By virtue of your oath, did anybody speak to you or tell 
you that that was het — By virtue of my oath nobody spoke to 
me before, but I went and took him by the hand immediately 
upon my going into the room. The gentleman I point to 
(pointing to Mr. Annesley) is the same as I knew in Frapper 
Lane. By virtue of my oath he is the very man. I am positive 
of it. 

Can you mention any particular that makes your recollection 
so strong? — When the complaints of Miss Gregory to my lord 
were made of him he used to stand in such a melancholy posture 
with his eyes bent upon the ground that the idea was so strong 
that his face came into my memory before I saw him. 

Cross-examined — Was Mr. Annesley, when you came into 
the room with Cook, in that melancholy posture? — No, he was 
not. 

How then could that be a reason of your knowing him? — 
Because it imprinted his face in my mind that I should know 
him if I was in America. His face was very familiar to me, 
because he went for about twelve months to school in my 
father's yard. I was about twenty-two or twenty-three then. 
I very often conversed with my lord. 

Did you ever hear my lord call him his son? — I never heard 
him say lie was his son pro or con. Lord Altham left Frapper 
Lane in April or May, 1724, to the best of my recollection, and 
he went to Inchicore. I believed he carried all his family with 
him, because I did not go into the house after he left it. I 
went to Franco on 27th May, 1724, and returned in the follow- 
ing August, and then I went to Inchicore, but I di<l not see 
the chiUl there. In September I again went to France, and 
did not return till after Christmas. I never inquired for the 
child after my return from France. I never saw the child 

135 



The Annesley Case. 



p. Piunket after my lord left Frapper Lane. I know Tom Byrne, the 
brewer, who lived in Frapper Lane at that time, lie lodged 
at one Reilly's, to the best of my knowledge, and after I 
returned from France I suppose he lived with his father. I 
never had any discourse with Tom Byrne about the boy. I 
don't remember when Mr. John Byrne came back to his brewery 
in Frapper Lane. 1 had no intimacy with Mr. John Byrne or 
his family ; we merely lived in the same neighbourhood. 

Suppose you had not been desired to go to see Mr. Annesley, 
do you think you should have known him if you had met him 
in the street? — Indeed, I believe I should recollect his face, 
for I believe any one that knew him when he was nine or ten 
years old would know him this very day. 

Amos Bush A.MOS BusH, examined — I remember when I was in college 
there was a little boy that seemed to be about ten or eleven 
years of age who, I think, got his subsistence in the college 
by running errands. He was called by the name of James 
Annesley, and a good many people said that he had given him- 
self out to be the son of Lord Altham, but I was not inclined 
to credit it. That was a great many years ago ; I cannot 
say exactly when. I did not know Lord Altham. The 
boy's face w-as very strongly imprinted in my mind, and 
yesterday morning I said that I should be able to know him, 
nay, if I was a painter I think I could draw his face without 
having seen him again. He sent for me yesterday, and I 
went to see him last night. When he came into the room, 
by the lines of his face and the memory I had of him, and 
the difference between a boy's and a man's face, I remem- 
bered that he was the boy I saw in the college, and the same 
that I had as a servant in the college ; and I remember I 
clothed him. To the best of my recollection, I believe this 
gentleman (pointing to Mr. Annesley) to be the same. I 
believe he attended me for a month or so. From his insisting 
on his being T^ord Althara's son I was induced to believe it 
to be true. I wrote to my grandfather that I had taken such 
a little boy for my servant, and my grandfather WTote back 
that he was dissatisfied that I should keep such a one for my 
servant, and desired that Lord Altham/ might keep his own 
son. Upon that I discharged him, and went down into the 
country. I have no doubt that this is the same person. I 
remember not only the lines of his face, but his eyes, and as 
soon as he came in last ni^rht I said, " Sir, T recollect your 
face," and he said, " I recollect yours very well, and have 
reason to remember it." 

Cross-examined — When you knew him in the collej^e, and 
that he lived by carrying messages, was he not reputed the 
bastard son of Lord Altham? — By his indigent circumstances 
136 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

some believed lie was a bastard son, but from his story, and Amos Bush 
persisting in it, I and more were induced to believe him to 
be his lawful son. He very often said he was my Lord 
Altham's son, upon which I rebuked him, and said, " You 
little rogue, how dare you say any such thing as that? " To 
that he replied, "Indeed I am my Lord and Lady Altham's 
son." When I inquired into the reason of his being turne'd 
out of doors he constantly persisted in the story that Lord 
Altham kept a mistress, and that it was that mistress that 
was the occasion of his being turned out of doors. I in- 
tended to keep the boy on as my servant till my grandfather 
desired the contrary. Although I was of opinion that he 
was a lawful son of Lord Altham I would have kept him on 
as a servant, because I had no other way of supporting him 
from penury, as my income at that time would not allow me 
to keep him in idleness. 

Did you at any time make any application to Lord Altham? 
— I did not know Lord Altham even by sight, nor did I know 
where he lived. 

Why did you not acquaint him with the circumstances of 
his son? — If I had understood ceremony as well as I do now 
I believe I should have acquainted his father. I believe the 
boy had been in the college for about a month before I took 
him. I do not think he had shoes to his feet. He was 
considered in the light of a " scull " in the college. I believe 
I entered college about 1722 or 1723, and I stayed there for 
about seven years. 

DoiflNiCK Farhell, examined — I knew the late Lord Altham, d. Farrell 
but I never had any discourse with him concerning Miss 
Gregory. Mr. James Annesley came to me when Lord Altham 
had turned him o£F. I cannot tell the year — as I had known 
him all along from childhood. My dealings with his father 
had Ijrought him to my knowledge at Dunmnine. I supported 
him until I gave him up to Mr. Purcell, the butcher, for my 
wife would not let me bring him homo, because I had been 
a great sufferer by my lord, having lost above £50 by him. 
I went to my lord at Inchicore after I had supported the boy 
for a fortnight or three weeks, and my lord desired me to 
make provision for him, saying that he would certainly pay 
me, not only what was due tf» me, but any expense I should be 
at in providing: for him. What I said to my lord was, 
"There's this poor child, lie will be lost, and it is a sin to 
see him like a vagrant about the town ; he is a disgrace to 
you. Send him to somebody to take care of him." He 
called the child his son. I went to Dunmaine in 1717 or 
1718 for my money and the money Lord Altham owed my 
brother. This was before the separation of Lord and Lady 

•37 



The Annesley Case. 



D. Parrcll Altham. I had the child in my arms then in presence of the 
nurse and my lord. I cannot tell what was the nurse's name. 
Lady Altham came into the parlour while I was there. The 
child was considered by everybody as my lord's son and heir 
by my lady. 

Did my lady say anything concerning him? — No other than 
kissing and liugging of him that I can remember. I also 
saw the child in the county of Kildare, about a mile and a 
half from Kilcullen Bridge, but I do not remember the name 
of the place. Lord Altham had the child Jemmy Annesley 
with him, the same as I saw with him at Dunmaine. I was 
in the county of Kildare three or four times. After that I 
saw the boy in what was reputed to be Lord Altham's own 
house at Stephen's Green, and then I saw the boy in Frapper 
Lane when he went to Carthy's school. When I asked Lord 
Altham to take the boy at Inchicore, he said that Miss Gregory 
and he could not agree, and that he could not keep him at 
home. " I shall have no peace," says he, " and must keep 
him somewhere, and I'll pay you not only what I owe you, 
but what you shall lay out in taking care of him." After 
the boy had been with me for some little time he was bare, 
and I gave him money to buy what he wanted. He did not 
come near me for three weeks or a month, till I saw him in 
Smithfield on horseback. I called to Purcell, and asked him 
if he would take that boy to be the son of a peer or of a noble- 
man, and he said that he would not take him to be so. " Well, 
then," says I, " I affirm it to be so; he is the son of my 
Lord Altham ; I know you and your wife to be good-natured 
people ; and I recommend to you as you have but one child, 
and he'll be a companion to him, to take him home and succour 
him." He said he would do so if what I told him was true. 
I said that it was true. " Call him over. Hiy name is 
Jemmy Annesley." I stepped aside, thinking that if the boy 
saw me he might not come so readily. He called him, and 
the boy came over. Purcell asked him what his name was, 
and he said "James Annesley." Upon that I turned round 
and asked if I had used him unkindly, and he said no. He 
then went and delivered up the horse to the owner, and Purcell 
led him by the hand to his house. I told his wife the story, 
and she cleaned him and put on a shirt and clothes belonging 
to her son, and said, "While I have a bit of bread for my 
own child you shall never want." The reason I did not take 
him to my own house was that my wife would not suffer him 
to come into the house. Pnrcell's wife is not livin" but he 
himself is a mighty honest man in good credit and above the 
world, a very reputable honest man. I believe my lord's 
circumstances at that time were very low. He was owing 
money to other persons besides me. I saw the boy very 
138 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

often at Purcell's house. I am told that he afterwards went d. Farpell 
to Mr. Tighe. I never saw him again till Saturday last, when 
I saw him at a house in College Green. I cannot tell in whose 
company he was. 

How came you to see him there? — I had a curiosity to see 
him to know whether I should have forgot the face in so 
long a time, because a man cannot be positive after thirteen 
years' time till he sees the object. I discovered him to be 
the child that I have given this account of. That is the 
gentleman (pointing to Mr. Annesley). 

Do you take upon you to swear this is the same person as 
you have seen in the several places you have before men- 
tioned? — That is he by virtue of my oath. All the calls I 
made to Dunmaine were to get the money that Lord Altham 
was owing me. The money was owing me for a lace head 
and stockings, fans and ribbons for my lady, and goods for 
himself. My lord bought those things himself ; my lady was 
not with him. My brother-in-law, who kept the inn where 
Lord Altham 's cattle stood, recommended me to my lord, and 
by that means he became my debtor. 

Cross-examined — I went to Dunmaine either in 1717 or 
1718, at the time of one of the meetings of the Cunagh, 
either April or September. I had never seen Lady Altham 
before I saw her at Dunmaine. I am certain that I saw her 
there. She was a pretty lusty woman, pretty tall, and 
pretty well grown. She was not very slender, she was 
middling, not very tall, but I cannot be particular. As near 
as I can guess she was a round-faced, plump woman, and I 
think her complexion was fair, I could not say what colour 
her hair was. She was dressed as a woman of quality ought 
to be. I stayed at Dimmaine one night, and went away next 
morning. I was never at Dunmaine again. I saw a child 
about a year and a half or two years old along with the nurse. 
Lady Althnm came up and took the child in her arms and 
kissed him, and my lord was by. I cannot tell whether the 
nurse was a wet or a diy nurse. I saw the child about five, 
or six, or seven, or eight o'clock. I never heard the name 
of the nurse, and I never heard of anv person called Joan 
Landy. I don't know that I ever heard of Joan Laffan. I 
do not know any person of that name. Some months after T 
was at Dunmaine Lord and Lady Althnm parted. 

I was in England seeing my customers every year from 1715 
till 1721 or 1722. Upon my oath, I was in England in 1717 
and 1718. T could not sny whether I wont there in the spring 
or autumn of 1717. Wlien T was at the house in the county 
of Kildare, the child apfioarod to be fivo or six years old. I 
remember now that the yilace was called Kinnea. There was 
between one and two years distance of time between my seeing 

139 



The Annesley Case. 



D. Parreii the child at Dunmaine and at Kiunea. The child was in coat 
and bi-eeches the first time I saw him at Kinnea, and I think 
he would then be about four or five years old. He had a 
tutor, but I don't know his name. That was the first time 
I was at Kinnea, and I believe it was within one year after 
I had seen him at Dimmaine. The child was in petticoats 
when I saw him at Dunmaine, and I believe he was about two 
years old. The next time 1 saw him after Kinnea was at 
Stephen's Green ; I cannot tell in what year. That was 
before he lived in Frapper Lane. I do not remember how 
long ago it is since my lord lived in Frapper Lane. When I 
saw the boy on horseback in Smithfield Lord Altham had 
gone to Inchicore. The boy was turned out, as I understood, 
and there was nothing left to support him in Frapper Lane, 
as I was told, and then he came to me. He had very good 
clothes on, and good shoes and stockings. I believe he con- 
tinued at Purcell's house for about a year or more. He had 
the smallpox there, and I went to see him very often at that 
time. I stayed in Dublin for about a year and a half or 
thereabouts after the child had the smallpox, and then I went 
to woi"k where 1 have been for eleven years this Christmas. 
I think the child came to me before Lord Altham went to 
Inchicore. I agreed with a master that kept a charity school 
near Michan's Church to teach Master James, but I cannot say 
whether he went there. I cannot remember when my lord 
went to Inchicore, but I saw him about three weeks or a month 
after the child came to me. The child was with me for two 
or three months or more before I sent him to Purcell. 

Did he constantly lie in your house? — Never at all, for my 
wife would not receive him. I gave him money to support 
himself, and I recommended Purcell to take him. I think 
he continued to stay there all the time till I went to Cork. 
Lord Altham's debt to me was contracted two or three years 
after the year 1715, but I could not be very particular, because 
I do not have my books here. 

Jfohn'Pupeell JoHN PuRcnELL, examined — I am a butcher to trade. I know 
Dominick Farrell very well, and I knew a boy that was called 
James Annesley. I happened to go to Smithfield one Wednes- 
day afternoon, and I saw Mr. Farrell talking to this little 
boy called James Annesley. The boy was riding on a horse, and 
when Mr. Farrell saw me he called him off the horse, and told 
me that he was Lord Altham's son. I said, " May be he is 
not his real son, but may be another way." " No," eays 
he, "he is his own lawful son." I said he was a poor thing, 
had he no relations, and where was his father. Mr. Farrell 
said that his father lived at Inchicore, but that the mistress 
140 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

that his father kept had put bad things into my lord's head. John PureeU 

I went up to the child myself and asked if he was Lord 

Altham's, and he said he was. I asked him two or three 

questions, and I said, " If you will promise me to be a good 

boy I'll take you home to my charge, and you shall never 

want while I have it." Upon that he fell upon his knees and 

gave me a thousand blessings. I took him home to my own 

house and presented him to my wife, and asked her to take 

care of him as if he was her own child. She then put clothes 

on him and made him up very grand. When I came back 

later on I found him in the kitchen with my wife, whom he 

called " Mammy." My wife and some people that knew the 

child called him my Lord Altham. He was a considerable 

while with me, as good a child as ever stood in the walls of a 

house. He took the smallpox in September, and recovered 

about the latter end of October. When he was just upon the 

recovery a gentleman with a gun in his hand and a setting 

dog came up to my house and asked if my name was Purcell. 

I said that was my name. He asked if I had not a little boy 

called Jemmy Annesley, that he was very desirous to see him. 

I told my wife, but she said that he was not fit to be seen, as 

he was just out of the smallpox. The child at this time was 

crying by the fireside, and when my wife asked the reason he 

said, " The sight of that gentleman that is now come in has 

put such a dread upon me I don't know what to do with 

myself." Upon this my wife was very loth to let him come, 

but I called the child, and he came up and made his bow 

to the gentleman, who asked, " Do you know me? " The 

child said, "Yes, very well, you are my uncle Annesley." 

So he asked him a great many questions, and he said, " I'll 

let your father know what hands you are in," and I asked 

him to speak to his father to take him into his charge. He 

stayed a good while with me ; I believe we drank to the tune 

of three mugs of ale. That (pointing to Lord Anglesea) is the 

gentleman that came to my house. He said to me, " I don't 

know whether you know his father or not." " No," says I, 

" not above any man in the world, but they say he is the Lord 

Altham's son." "Indeed," says he, "he is." He said 

he would tell the father that the child was alive and well, and 

that he would ask him to remit me something that was hand- 

fiorae in taking that care and charge of the child. I said that 

I desired no gratuity, but I wished with all my heart that his 

father would take him into his care himself. I never asked 

him any question about the child's mother. 

Did you ask whether he was my lord's natural son or not? — 
I ne%'er put any question, but several people told me he was 
his natural son. 

141 



The Annesley Case. 



John Purcell What do you mean by a natural son? — I mean his real son. 

Do you mean by his wife? — Yes, they told me he had him 
by a gentlewoman he brought with him out of England, who 
was a natural daughter of the Duke of Buckingham. When 
Mr. Richard Aimesley spoke to the child he called him 
" Jemmy," and he told me that my Lord Altham was the 
father. 

Lord Altham died in 1727. About a fortnight or three weeks 
after his death Mr. Richard Annesley came into our market, 
and sent a man for Jemmy Annesley. The man came along 
with the child to me at the stall, and he said, "My mistress 
gives her humbled service to you and desires you'll go along 
with me, for my uncle has sent for me and I am sure it cannot 
be for any good ; I am afraid to go by myself, for I fear he'll 
use me ill." Upon that I sent the man to the gentleman to 
tell him that he was coming. I went with the child to the 
house of Mr. Jones, but before I went in I tc-ik a stick in my 
hand. The child had me fast by the skirt of the coat. When 
I went into the entry I saw three or four fellows ranked by 
the wall of the entry whom I suspected. The present Earl of 
Anglesea, who was then all in black, met me at the kitchen 
door. When I saw him I knew him, took off my hat, and 
bade him good-morrow. He just said, " How do you do, Mr. 
Purcell?" and called to the fellow standing behind my back, 
" Hark you, sir, take that thieving son of a whore and leave 
him in the proper place till further directions." I asked 
him who it was he meant by "a, thieving son of a whore," 
and he said, " Damn me, I am not speaking to you, but to 
that thieving son of a whore there in your hand." I said, 
" My lord, he is not a thief." " Damn me," said he, " but 
I'll send him, the thieving son of a whore, to the devil." 
"No," says I; "by God you shan't send him to the devil 
nor his dam neither, for I'll take care of him while in my 
charge." And with that I got him between my legs and put 
my arms over him, hugged the child to me, and said, " Who- 
ever offers to do him mischief by all that's good I'll knock his 
brains out." This was about six or seven weeks from the 
first time he had seen the child at my house. I asked him 
then what authority he had to say that he would do so-and-so, 
and he said that he could not make his appearance at the 
Castle or any other place but that he was insulted on account 
of that thieving son of a whore, and for that reason he should 
not stay in the kingdom. I told him then, " You make a good 
appearance of a gentleman, and I am surprised that you should 
show 80 much revenge and so much malice as to say that you 
will destroy this poor creature which you will neither support 
nor maintain." When he foimd he could not get his revenge 
142 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

he desired me to go and look for his nurse. I did not know John Pureoll 
who his nurse was, and I said, "All that he told me is that 
my Lord Altham was his father, and I don't think myself 
under any such obligations as to go for his nurse." Upon that 
I brought the child home and left him with my wife. 

Were there any more attempts made to take away this child ? — 
There were some attempts made by some constables and bailiffs 
to take him — the child told me so. I saw one of the constables 
or bailiffs come into the yard one day, and when he saw me 
he went out again. The child continued to stay with me till 
about the beginning of February after, and then he went to 
Mr. Tighe's, in the Haymarket, on his own accord, without my 
knowledge. I met him afterwards and asked him why he 
had left me, and he said that he was ashamed to see so many 
fellows coming about the house to take him, and so he left it 
that I should not be uneasy upon the affair. 

Have you seen this gentleman lately? — I believe I did. That 
is the gentleman there (pointing to Mr. Annesley). I know 
him as well as I know the hand now upon my heart. 

Cross-examined — It was in the year 1726 that Farrell showed 
me the boy in Smithfield. He merely said that he was my 
Lord Altham's son, and I asked whether he was his real son 
or not, because I had heard some stories before. I heard at 
that time that Lord Altham was living at Inchicore, which is 
a little beyond Kilmainham. I cannot remember particularly 
the month I first saw him, but I believe it was in April or May. 
He died in November, 1727. All I know about his death 
is that the child heard of his burial, and went to see him 
interred in Christ Church, and came back all in tears. I 
understood from what people said that the child was Lord 
Altham's son, and I believed him to be his lawful son from 
what Farrell told me. To the best of my knowledge Farrell 
told me that the boy had lived in the house with him, but he 
was obliged to put him out because he would not have his wife 
and himself to be at variance. 

Did Farrell tell you whether he put this boy to school? — 
Never any such thing ; but I know I had a schoolmaster in the 
houpo to toncli him to write. I novor went to Inchicore to 
speak to Lord Althnm about the boy. 

If you believed this boy to be my lord's son, and had «o 
much passion for him, and my lord was so very near as Inchi- 
core, I desire you'll satisfy the Court and jury why you did 
not acquaint my lord that the boy was in your care? — I assure 
you I never purposed to ask the child any questions about the 
affair at all. I was determined to go to see mv lord, and 
made an attempt two or three times, but I was dissuaded from 
going because they told me he was a passionate little man, 

143 



The Annesley Case. 



John Purcell and by reason of the mistress hu kept in his house he would 
not mind shooting me. The child went to the burial about 
three weeks before I saw Captain Kichard Annesley at Jones's 
house. When I met Captain Richard Annesley I called him 
" My lord, Lord Altham." I knew that he was the late 
Lord Altham's brother. 

If you knew that he was only the brother, and believed this 
boy to be the son, how came it that you did not put the boy 
in mind of his right or give him his right to that title of 
honour descended to him from his father? Do you not know 
that an only son succeeds to the title of honour of his father? — 
I was a stranger to that affair, and not in a condition to go 
about it. 

Did you inquire whether the late Lord Altham had any 
estate? — Not I, upon my word. I never asked any questions 
about that affair when I heard that Richard Annesley was 
called Lord Altham. 

Give the Court and the jury an account why you did not 
put this child upon asserting his claim to the title and estate 
of his father? — He did not stay very long with me after his 
father's death, and then he went to a gentleman that I thought 
better able to inquire about that affair. He stayed with me 
till about February, but he never said anything to me about 
any right he had to any title. 

Did you apprise any person that you had such a son of Lord 
Altham''s?— I did not. 

Did you ever inquire whether my Lord Altham, his father, 
had left any estate or legacy? — Upon my word I never did. 

Did you not know that Captain Richard Annesley assumed 
the honour and title of Altham ? — I did hear so. One day not 
long after the boy left me I saw him at Mr. Tighe's door. He 
had a livery on him ; Mr. Tighe's, I suppose. 

Did you ever apprise Mr. Tighe that that boy in his livery 
was the son of the late Lord Altham? — I never did. 

Give some satisfaction why you would not apprise Mr. Tighe 
of that matter? — I tell you when I saw that the child had 
left me so abruptly, and that he would not continue with me, 
I did not care much to trouble myself about him. I have 
known Mr. Tighe for many years. 

How long before you saw the boy at his door? — I believe 
I have known him about fourteen or fifteen years. I think 
at this time he was called Councillor Tighe, but I never spoke to 
the gentleman. 

When this conversation passed between the present Earl of 
Anglesea and you at Jones's, had you reason to believe that 
some mischief was intended to the boy? — I did not know what 
his mind might be, but I did suspect it all along. At that 
time he said he would get him transported. 

144 



Evidence for PlaintifF. 

If you believe this, and did believe that the boy was the John PuM«ll 
son of Lord Altham, and Lord Altham was dead, why did you 
not secure this boy from mischief? — I did as much as lay in 
my power. I did not acquaint any magistrate or anybody 
else of this, for when I sent him home I thought it was all 
over. I kept him within for some time, but when he got 
into another's custody I was not accountable for him. I did 
not see anybody else in Mr. Jones's house but Lord Altham 
and Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones is now dead. There were two 
or three constables in the entry behind my back. There 
was one that was going to seize the child, and there were two 
or three more who were aiding and assisting. One of the 
constables attempted to take the child from me, but I 
threatened to knock out the brains of the first man that should 
oflfer to take him frorr rne. I cannot tell how many persons 
there were at the door. 

If those persons intended to take that child from you by 
force could they not have done iti — No. 

Had you any to assist you? — I had enough in the market, 
and said I would lose my life before I would lose the child. 

Did anybody come to your assistance? — The people in the 
market heard it. The butchers came to assist me. 

Is there a man living that asked you if you wanted any 
assistance? — It is of a long standing, and therefore I cannot 
recollect myself. The boy remained in mv house over two 
months after this attempt. 

When you had reason to believe this boy was to be taken 
from you, why did you not acquaint some magistrate? — ^That 
apprehension was not in me so sharp. I thought all things 
were over. When I had the conversation with Captain Kiehard 
Annesley, when he came with his gun, he told me that the boy 
was my Lord Altham's son. Mr. Farrell told me that the 
boy was my Lord Altham's real son, natural son. 

Did he say real or natural ? — He told me natural and real 
both. I understood he meant a son got by his lawful wife. 
I am certain that Cafjtain Annesley did not sav to me that the 
boy was my lord's " natural " son. When I saw the boy 
in a livery I was greatly surprised. 

Did you believe then that he was Lord Altham? — It might 
be so — might mifrht overcome right — but I thought so in my 
own conscience. When he was with me I treated him with 
tenrlemesR and affection, and it would have given me pleasure 
if ho had received a benefit. 

Why, thon. would you not apply for him to receive one? — 
T was ashamed to apply to any gentleman, for I thought it 
wns none of my business to nsk any such question of any 
gentlemnn. 

Whv? — T dirl not rare to interfere. The boy was sharp 
enough, and he said that he hoped to be Earl of Anglesoa yet. 
L 14.S 



The Annesley Case. 



John Purceil When you saw him in livery, what was your opinion as to 
whether he was a lawful or a bastard son? — I was not in that 
apprehension to ask him then, for I was vexed at his leaving 
me, because I thought I was as capable to keep him then as 
before. I never had any discourse with auybodv concerning 
the boy after this, save with my wife. I never saw the boy 
on board ship, to my knowledge. I know Mr. Andiew 
Charlton, the attoiney, and Christopher Stone. I never told 
either of them that I had seen the boy on board ship, and 
that he had refused to come away with me. I cannot tell 
how long the boy stayed with Mr. Tighe. I intended to keep 
the child as long as he was pleased to continue with me, and 
I gave him as good an education as I could. 

Did you keep him with a design to disclose who he was, 
or did you mean to keep him as your own child? — I thought 
when he came to knowledge himself he would discover 
himself to Lord Altham. Several knew when he lived with me 
that he was Lord Altham 's son. It was not my way of think- 
ing to make him known. He sometimes went an errand for 
me. He sometimes called me " Master," and my wife he 
sometimes called " Mammy " and sometimes " Mistress." He 
did nothing for his bread when he stayed with me except 
running of an errand. 

Did you ever hear that the boy was on board ship? — I did. 

Why did you not then acquaint a magistrate with it? — As 
the boy had left me, I never gave myself any trouble. I knew 
Jones perfectly well before that time, and I never knew him 
to be anything but an honest man. After that he used to go 
mad about the streets, and cry that he was undone by my 
Lord Altham. 

Do you know whether Jones would have consented to have 
had an innocent boy taken away by force? — I cannot tell, for 
my lord used to frequent his house, and I don't believe he 
would interfere either one way or another. I cannot tell what 
his thoughts were. It would be about a year or two after 
this transaction that Jones ran mad about the streets. There 
was no ill-usage from me that occasioned the boy going away 
from my house. When he was with me he never went to 
school, but I had a man to teach him in the house. He stayed 
out all night on three or four occasions. 

I think you said that you apprehended that constables or 
bailiffs were haunting about your house in order to take this 
child? — I saw a suspicious fellow open the latch, and when 
he saw me he went out and flew like a buck. 

Was not the child in as much danger at Mr. Tighe's as with 
you? — As to that, I cannot tell. 

When the boy left you did you suspect that anybody had 
taken him away? — I never made any inquiry. 
146 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 



Fourth Day, Tuesday, 15th November, 1743. 

SiLCROSs Ash, examined — I was acquainted with the late SHeross Ash 
Lord Altham, but I did not Icnow that he had any child or 
reputed child. I did not know Mr. James Annesley till the 
first time he came into this kingdom, which was about a 
twelvemonth ago. I never saw him to my knowledge before 
that. I know the defendant in this case. Immediately after 
the burial of the late Lord Altham I was in company with 
the present Lord Anglesea. A gentleman told him that there 
was a boy at the burial that made a very great noise, and 
called himself the son of Lord Altham, upon which the defend- 
ant got into a passion and called him an impostor or a vaga- 
bond, or something of that sort, and said that he deserved 
to be transported. I cannot positively say that he called him 
a bastard. Shortly after that I was again in company with 
the defendant, and a person came in, either one Cavanagh, 
the dancing master, or Wilkinson, persons who used to be 
about the late Lord Altham. One of them said that he had 
been with Mr. Hawkins, King-at-Arms, and that Mr. Hawkins 
had refused to enrol his lordship on account of the rumour occa- 
sioned by the noise that the boy had made at the funeral of the 
late Lord Altham. Upon that the defendant was very angry, 
and made use of some indecent expressions against Mr. 
Hawkins. He repeated that the boy was an impostor or a 
vagabond, and I said that if he were an impostor or a vaga- 
bond then there were ways and means to punish him for it. 
To the best of my belief the word " bastard " was made use 
of. He repeated that the boy deserved to be transported. I 
said that if he was a vagabond then the method to follow was to 
have him indented at the Tholsel. I remember when the mes- 
senger told the defendant that Mr. Hawkins refused to enrol 
him I said that the reason might be that Mr. Hawkins expected 
his honorary fees, whereupon his lordship said that if that 
was all he would go and satisfy him. 

Did he mean that he would satisfy Mr. Hawkins as to the 
fees or as to the rumour, or both? — As to both. His lord- 
ship afterwards took his seat in the House of Peers. I do 
not know of any steps that were taken to get rid of the boy. 
I never heard the defendant say that he was transported, but 
Bome time after I hoard him say that the boy was gone. That 
was all he said. I cannot recollect what was the occasion of 
defendant's mentioning to me that the boy was gone. 1 do 
not remember who were present on that occasion. He said 
it in an easy manner, without any heat. 

Cross-examined — I never heard of the boy until the time 
.after the late Lord Altham's funeral. I have dine<l with Lord 

147 



The Annesley Case. 



SUcross Ash Altluim at Incliicore. I never lieard him mention anything 
about a son. I nevei- heard him say who was to inherit his 
honour and estate. I always apprehended the defendant to 
he the presumptive heir of the late Lord Altham in his life- 
time. The general i-eputation was this, that the late lord 
and the defendant had executed deeds in reversion. I never 
drew or read any deed executed by the late Lord Altham. It 
was commonly known that he died intestate, and I myself took 
out letters of administration for the present lord. I believe 
it would be less than a year after the person came from Mr. 
Hawkins when the defendant said that the boy was gone. 
That was said in a tavern, and there were three or four present 
at the time, but I cannot rememl^er who they were. They 
were gentlemen that he was intimate with. I was never con- 
sulted by his lordship as to any method of transporting the 
boy. I was the person that he advised with chiefly about his 
affairs at that time. He reposed entire confidence in me then. 

Mark Byrne Mark Byrne, examined — I have known the defendant for a 
long time. About fifteen or sixteen years ago, when I was 
a constable, I met another constable, John Donnelly, in 
Charles's Street, Dublin. He told me he had a very good 
job to go upon, and was to get a guinea for doing it, and he 
desired me to go with him. I accordingly went along with 
him to Jones's house in Ormonde Market, where the defendant, 
who was then called Lord Altham, was. There was a small 
boy there who, my lord said, was his brother's son. My lord 
charged the boy with having stolen a silver spoon, and he 
desired Donnelly and me and the others to take him away. 
We took the boy away till we came, to the best of my know- 
ledge, to George's Quay, where the boy was put into a boat. 
My lord went along with him, and Donnelly, and some others 
that I do not know, went into the boat and sailed down the 
river. I parted with them there, and would not go any 
further. The next day Donnelly came to me and gave me a 
shilling. I demanded part of the guiiiea from him, and he 
told me he had not got it. I have never got any more of 
the guinea than an English shilling. On our road to the Quay 
the boy cried, and that made a mob gather. The boy said 
he was afraid that my lord would either kill him or transport 
him. He called him his uncle. When the people heard this 
they followed, but there was nothing said by anybody in order 
to prevent his transportation. I never saw the boy again till 
he sent to inquire for me. There was a coach got at Essex 
Bridge, into which Donnelly, the boy, and I went, the others 
following. My lord was at George's Quay as soon as the coach. 
Neither Donnelly nor I had any staves as constables, but we 
148 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

were publicly known t(i be constables. We had no warrant, Mark Sytinfi 
so far as I saw. 

Cross-examined — When we went to Jones's house it was day- 
light. I believe it was in the spring. We saw the boy in 
the kitchen, along with my lord and some others. This was 
the first time I knew my lord. We would not be there for 
half an hour before we brought the boy away, because we 
were ordere<l by my lord to take him away directly. I did 
not know what my lord was going to do with the boy, but 
when I saw him going down the river I began to be afraid, 
and I went no further. I apprehended that it was not any- 
thing that was right that was going to be done with him. 
There was nothing said as to what was to be done with the 
boy. I was not surjjrised that my lord should take his own 
nephew into custody for stealing a spoon. When we came to 
the boat I apprehended that there was something to be done 
to him, but I could not tell what was meant to be done. I 
believed they were going to send him over sea. 

Did you not know, supposing the boy was guilty of the 
fact, that it was unlawful for anybody to transport him without 
a trial? — I did believe it to be so, but I did not acquaint 
anybody with it afterw-ards. I was not well acquainted at 
Jones's house. I cannot tell what sort of clothes the boy had 
on wlien we took him away. Donnelly is now dead. I cannot 
tell what year this happened. I believe I had been more than 
two years a constable at that time. When Donnelly told me he 
had a good job he did not tell me anything about it, but I 
wan determined to execute any job I was paid for. I cannot 
tell whether there was any servantmaid or woman in the 
kitchen of Jon<s'.s house when we were there. I cannot tell 
whether Mr. Jones was in the kitchen. I had seen the 
defendant several times in Dublin before that. I do not 
remember wliat dress he was wearing. When we took the 
boy away I knew where we Avere to carry him to. 

Were you not surprised as to what could be the meaning of 
tliis? — I cannot tell what was the meaning any further than I 
have told already, that I w\as surprised when I saw the boy 
put into tlic hiiat. I cannot tell wliat instructions Donnelly 
liad. We walked towards Essex Bridge, and there we got a 
coacli. Donnelly directed the coachman to drive to George's 
Quay. 

Did you apprehend then that you were doing a good act or 
not? — By virtue of my oath, I could not tell what to think of 
it. I was along with the others putting the boy into the boat. 
I went along down tlie steps of tlie [tlace with the boy and 
Donnelly till they went into the boat. T did not touch llie boy. 
Donnelly went into the boat, and then my lord and n servant 

149 



The Anneslcy Case. 



Mark Byrne James Reilly followed. To the best of my knowledge, Reilly was 
in a. livery, but I do not recollect what livery it was. He was 
not in black. I did not see Keilly till I saw him on George's 
Quay. I stayed upon the quay till I saw the boat go off, and 
I saw them row down between tjie walls. I cannot tell how 
the tide was. I did not stay to see them pass the point. 

Did they row to a ship between the walls or beyond the 
walls? — I did not take notice of any one ship more than 
another. I know John Purcell, the butcher, very well. He 
was not at Jones's house that day, to my knowledge. I saw 
him often after that, but I never spoke to him of what had 
happened to the boy. I never heard that the boy lived with 
John Purcell. I never related this matter to any person till I 
was sent for and examined. I cannot tell what colour of 
clothes my lord wore. We put the boy into the coach to keep 
him from the crowd. I did not see my lord when we went 
into the coach; I did not see him till we got to George's Quay. 
He was dressed in his usual way. I would be on the quay 
not a quarter of an hour before the boy was put into the boat. 
Purcell kept his stall in Beef Row% and Jones's house was in 
the same row\ I believe I passed by Purcell's stall, but I did 
not see him, to my knowledge. I was examined before the 
Commissioners. 

Did you ever acquaint anybody of what passed the day that 
the boy was put on board the boat till you were examined 
before the Commissioners? — Mr. Annesley sent for me and 
asked if I remembered such-and-such things. I cannot tell 
how the boy came to Jones's house. Mr. Annesley sent one 
MacClane for me as being one of the constables. 

Did you tell him your name when you carried him to the 
Blip?— No. 

How came he then to know your name? — I cannot tell. 

Do you know that he is the person you sent down to the 
boat? — I would not for the world take upon me to say that he 
is the person. The boy cried all the way down to George's 
Quay. I did not hear him say on the quay that he was appre- 
hensive of being killed. I was not acquainted with any one 
of the mob there. The mob at no time endeavoured to take 
the boy away from us. I did not speak to any of the mob, 
although there were several asking what was the matter. 

Why would you not tell? — Indeed, I was afraid. 

James Reilly Jambs REii.iiT, examined — I live in a house of my own in 
London. I know the Earl of Anglesea. I was for about eleven 
months his servant about fifteen or sixteen years ago. The 
late Lord Altham had been dead about three months when I 
came to live with the present earl. I left Sergeant Green on 
ISO 



Evidence for PlaintifF, 

Arran Quay upon New Year's Day, and about a fortnight after James Reilly 
that I came to live with my Lord Altham. When I had been 
with him for about a month or five weeks I was several times 
employed by him to go and look with some constables for James 
Annesley. I went along with Jack Donnelly, Bryan Donnelly, 
Mark Byrne, and Patrick Keilly. Reilly was no relation of 
mine. These men were all constables. 

What was it that my lord said to you when he desired you to 
go? — He said that if we took him any ways to bring him into 
some alehouse, and to send for his lordship as soon as possible. 
I went five or six times with these constables in search of the 
boy. I only saw Mark Byrne once along with the other con- 
stables; I saw him along with the boy at George's Quay when 
the boy was sent on board ship. We looked for the boy in 
Newmarket, Smithfield, and along the quays. One day I 
was sent for by my lord to George's Quay. When I came there 
he whispered me to go and borrow a guinea for him. I borrowed 
it from Mrs. Kelly at the " Butcher's Arms," and returned to 
my lord at George's Quay and gave him the guinea. I saw my 
lord give the guinea into Jack Donnelly's hands, and then 
Donnelly went away. There was a boat at the slip, and Byrne, 
Donnelly, and Mark Byrne came with the child, who was imme- 
diately put into the boat. My lord, Brian Donnelly, Jack 
Donnelly, the boy, and I went into the boat and rowed to a 
ship that lay down the river as far as Ringsend. No one went 
on board but my lord and the boy, and he cried very bitterly. 
I do not know whose ship he was put on board, or what the 
name of the ship was. The boy did not say anything at all. 

I had been acquainted with the boy since he was six years 
old. I first knew him at Stephen's Green, and then at Lord 
Altham's house in Frapper Lane. I never knew anything to 
the contrary but that he was my Lord and Lady Altham's 
son. There was a relation of mine, the housemaid, called 
Catty Fury, that took care of the boy. I have heard the present 
Lord Anglesea very often say, when people used to affront 
him for destroying the boy's birthright, that he would be even 
with him, that he would take a course with him. I have heard 
people cursing after my lord as he went along for taking the 
boy's birthright away. That was while I lived with my lord, 
and both before and after the boy was gone. 

Cross-examined — I came over to Ireland three weeks ago 
last Sunday. I have not been a servant these four years. I 
know Lord Barrymore very well. I was never a servant of his, 
but I believe I shall be as soon as I return, because my lord 
promiHed mo the first vacancy. I expect to be his house 
steward. Upon my coming here to give evidence his lordship 
gave me a protection because I owed some money here. In 



The Annesley Case. 



Jamea Rellly that direction I am called a servant, but I am not Lord Barry- 
more's servant as yet. It was in the afternoon that I went 
down to George's Quay. It was in the springtime, and the 
daylight was going. When we came back from the ship it 
was iluskish. The ship lay in the river as far down as 
Kingsend. I think it took about an hour and a quarter between 
the time we left in the boat and the time we came ashore 
again. My lord was first to go into the boat, and then Jack 
and Bryan Donnelly, and the boy. Two more went in after 
them, and I was the last to go. I cannot say whether I have 
seen these two persons since. I had been acquainted with 
Mark Byrne for eight or nine years before this. Lord Altham 
lived at Inchicore when I was his servant. I was a livery 
servant at that time. I cannot remember the month that the 
boy was put on board, but I should think it would be about 
two months after I entered my lord's service. 

I ask you upon your oath if you can recollect whether at 
any time, either in March or February, while you lived with 
my Lord Altham, you evtr .saw Mark Byrne? — I saw him several 
times, but I had no great acquaintance with him. I only asked 
him the time of the day or some such thing. I saw him on 
Friday last, and also on Saturday and Monday, but we had no 
discourse as to anything I knew relating to the transporting 
of Mr. Annesley. He did not ask me what had brought me to 
Ireland. He did not ask me any questions, so far as I know. 
I saw Mark Byrne on George's Quay the day that the boy 
was put into the boat. I don't know what became of him ; he 
did not go along with us. I did not see him after coming 
back from the ship. The boy was with Mark Byrne and the 
two Donnelly s when I first saw him. I did not see them till 
they were standing at the slip. My lord and the boy came to 
the slip within two minutes of each other. I cannot tell how 
long he had been there before I saw the boy. I have heard 
nothing of Mrs. Kelly these twelve years. My lord gave the 
guinea to Donnelly in less than half a minute after I gave it 
to him, and Donnelly went immediately for the boy and brought 
him to the slip. I cannot tell how the Donnellys and Mark 
Byrne came to the slip. I cannot tell whether they came on 
foot. I cannot say whether I saw a coach or not. There was 
a very short distance of time between my lord's giving the 
guinea to Jack Donnelly and Donnelly's coming to the slip. 
It would not be an hour — I cannot say what time it would be. 
It was after two o'clock when I went for the guinea, and I came 
back about three o'clock as near as I can guess. I should 
think that I would be at the slip three or four minutes before 
the boy was brought there, but I cannot tell exactly. I do 
not know where Jack Donnelly was sent to for the child. My 

152 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

wages with Lord Altham were to be £4 a year. I cannot tell James Reilly 
what colour of clothing the boy had on that day. 

Did you understand for what purpose the boy was brought to 
the quay? — The Donnellys told me that my lord had granted 
a warrant against him for stealing a silver spoon. 

Had you ever any conversation with the defendant relating 
to the purpose of the boy's being brought to the quay? — I had, 
in order to transport him abroad. I knew that from my lord 
several times when he gave me several shillings to spend with 
the constables. I knew that that was not a lawful act. Before 
I went to borrow the guinea I knew that it was to be given to 
the constables to engage them to bring the boy to be 
transported. 

TIow could you that knew this to be unlaw-ful assist in it? — 
I was obliged to do what my master bade me. When my lord 
employed me to search for the boy he desired me to go about 
Smithfield and the market, and the long meadows of a Sunday. 

Wlien he sent you to seek out this boy, did he not tell you 
he was at one Purcell's, a butcher? — Yes; my loid bade me 
take care of the Ormonde boys, because Puicell would alarm 
them, and they would attempt to take him from us. This 
was in the spring following the death of the late Lord Altham. 
I do not know where the boy was got. The Donnellys did not 
tell me. When I went to my lord first he had a lodging in 
town, but I cannot tell whereabouts it was, as I was in the 
country house. My lord used to dine at Inchicore, and he had 
company there. I think I have seen that gentleman's face 
(pointing to Mr. Silcross Ash). I worked in the garden when 
I went first, and then I got the clothes of another servant that 
lia<l gone — a blue frock I think it was. I cannot speak to my 
lord's clothes, because he kept them himself. I don't remem- 
ber anything paiticular about his diess. I never wore black 
clothes when 1 was in my lord's service. I remember Mr. 
Derenzy and Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy dining with my lord while 
I was in his service. I cannot tell how my lord was dressed 
the day the boy was put on board. I believe he was not in 
full dress. The day I was on George's Quay I wore my lord's 
livery, blue lined with red. There was no one else in the boat 
with the same livery. I had seen the boy a hundred times 
from the time I had seen him in Frapper Lane till he was 
brought down to the slift, but I never saw him after my lord 
g.ivo me flirections to look for him. I saw him wear a livery, 
Mr. Tighe's, I believe. I l^elieve that was after the late Lord 
Altlijim dif<l, l)ut I cannot say positively. The late Lord 
Altham died before I left Mr. Green's employment. I cannot 
say whether it was before or after I left Mr. Green's employ- 
ment that I saw the bf»y in a livery. I saw him very often 
in the livery. He was (jn-ssed in the same livery on George's 

'.S3 



The Anneslcy Case. 



James ReUly Quay. I don't remember the colour. I don't know where 
Donnelly found tlie boy. I asked, but he did not tell me, I 
never heard Lord Altham say where Donnelly found him. My 
lord turned me out of the house about two o'clock one morning. 
My lord coming home one night to Inchicore from Dublin, I 
had wrapped myself up in an old blanket and seated myself on 
a chair close on the inside of the gate, so that I might wake 
the easier when my lord came home. My lord having words 
with the coachman who drove him home, I opened the gate 
to hinder him running the coachman through the body, as he 
threatened. On seeing the chair and the blanket at the door 
my lord charged me with an intent to rob him, to which I 
replied that, if I had any such intent, I would hardly have 
thought of carrying away an old blanket and a chair not 
worth a groat. Thereupon his lordship fell into a great rage, 
stripped me of my coat, waistcoat, and breeches, and in that 
condition turned me out of doors, though it was a mizzly 
night, threatening, with many oaths and curses, to send me 
to Kilmainham Jail if I did not get away from the door that 
instant. I, having got some clothes at Dublin, went next 
day to my lady and desired her to intercede with my lord for 
my wages and three guineas that I had laid out for him. My 
lady promised to intercede for me, and gave me 7s. to buy 
shoes and stockings. My lord, hearing of this, issued out his 
own warrant, and got me taken up by a constable for the Ts., 
under pretence that I had defrauded my lady of the money 
under false colours. Rather than lie in jail, I paid the 7s., 
and was thereupon discharged. I was never paid my wages 
by my lord. I was so afraid of his lordship that one day, 
when I was living as a servant with Lord Mountjoy, seeing my 
lord come in there, I hid myself for fear of him. I knew the 
boy since he was six years old. I could not tell how old he 
was in Frapper Lane. It would be a good while more than a 
year that I would know him before he went there. I first knew 
him at Stephen's Green. He was then about six years old. 

George Babe George Babe, examined — I am an oflBcer in the Custom-house, 
and have the honour to be clerk of the ships' entries of the 
port of London, inwards and outwards. I find by the books 
in my oflfice that, on 18th April, 1728, the "James," of 
Dublin, burthen 100 tons, Thomas Hendry master, entered 
outwards for Fial, in Philadelphia, and this entry was made 
by Mr. James Stevenson, who was one of the merchants that 
entered the goods. When a ship enters outwards they swear 
to the place which they intend to go to. After the entry is 
made they take their own time for going, but they cannot go 
without making their entry. 

154 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

Andrew Crommt, examined — I knew the late Mr. James A. Crommr 
Stevenson. I served as his clerk for thirteen years, having 
gone to him in June, 1720, and left him in September, 1733. 
Mr. Stevenson was a merchant, and he often traded to the 
West Indies. He sent checked linens to Philadelphia, but 
chiefly servants. There used to be advertisements published 
giving notice of the time a ship was to sail for Philadelphia, 
whereupon servants came to Mr. Stevenson's house. When 
an agreement had been made there was an entry made in his 
books, and when the ship was ready to sail the persons were 
brought down to the Tholsel, and they were indentured before 
the Lord Mayor. They all went voluntarily. Several young 
boys of twelve or thirteen years of age, and some younger, used 
to come and indent before the Lord Mayor. I can, to the best 
of my knowledge, say that every person's name was taken 
before the ship sailed, and entered in Mr. Stevenson's book. 
I used to make the entries, but the particular entry in question 
was made by Francis Skellern, who is now dead, but with 
whose handwriting I am very well acquainted. 

[The book was admitted to be read by consent. The title of 
the entry read was — " An account of the men and women 
servants on board the ship 'James,' which went over the barr 
tlie 30th April, 1728."] Then there follows a list of the 
men and women servants and passengers. James Annesley is 
entered as a servant, the name being spelt " Ansley." The 
servants are distinguished from the passengers by being put 
in a column by themselves. I believe this is an exact list of 
the servants when the ship went over the bar. Care was 
always taken to see that every person in the list was actually 
on board. The persons on board at the time the list was called 
over were not asked any questions as to whether they were 
indentured or not. 

Cross-examined — Mr. Stevenson dealt in this trade of send- 
ing servants to America while I was with him. I remember 
the ship being here in 1728. I don't remember whether any 
of the servants were put on board the ship while she lay within 
the walls. The servants went to be examined before the Lord 
Mayor, and if they were under age he inquired where their 
parents were and whether they went voluntarily or not. I 
never heard of any person that was sent on board by force. 
Mr. Gonne, the town-clerk, takes the account of the persons 
indf;nte<l. We sometirnos clothe the servants when we send 
them on board ship. We take an account from tlie master or 
tlic mate whether any person on board the ship goes as a 
pa.ssengcr or as a servant. 

Do any f>ersons go aboard as servants that you don't carry 
Ix'foro my Lord .Mayor? — There are several perKons that have 
gone abroad who have })een sent by Mr Hawkins from the 

'55 



The Anneslcy Case. 



A. CroBimy couuty. IT Uk-v \\tMv i>f the city wc always used to take 
thorn beforo the Loi«l Mayor. Tlje master or the mate may 
tell the clork that a [ktsoii goes as a servant though such per- 
son has not been indentured, but I cannot say that that is 
done. I never knew of any person being sent who was not 
indented either by the Loid Mayor or Mr. Hawkins, but it 
might have been done without my knowledge. I cannot tell 
whether Thomas Hendry, the master of the ship " James," 
is dead or alive. 

When the clerk takes down the names of the persons, if 
anybody on board complained and was unwilling to go, would 
you carry liim? — I could not take him from on board ship 
without my master's directions ; I could not prevent his going. 

If that person said, " I am not indentured, and will not 
go," would you suffer him to go and put liim down in your 
list as one of your servants? — Yes, I would, for I must enter 
him down in the list and make a return to my master. If I 
went on board as clerk to take an account of the servants, and 
a man who was called upon as a servant declared he was not 
:i servant, I would look to see if there was any indenture 
binding him. 

And if you found no indenture would you still enter him 
as a servant? — Yes, he must be entered as a servant to be 
there. 

If such a thing happened, could you stop the ship? — I co\dd 
not. No persons go in the capacity of servants without indent- 
ing, to my knowledge, but they may do so without my know- 
ledge, for the master may carry such persons if he pleases. 
Skellern was an honest man. I knew Hendry very well. He 
was an honest man at first, but he turned out a very great 
rogue, because Mr. Stevenson lost £4000 by him. 

Do you think the master of that ship could have signed 
over any person in America without appearing in the inden- 
tures? — I cannot tell what the master might do. The master 
might have servants on board without my knowledge, or Mr. 
Stevenson's either. The master returns an account to his 
master of the sale of the servants. I believe there was never 
any return made of the voyage in question. Neither I nor 
any of the clerks had any directions given us concerning James 
Annesley any more than any other person. 

H«nry Gonna Henry Goanb, exammed — I am the town-clerk of the city 
of Dublin. I produce a book called the Indenture Book, 
which contains a list of persons indented before the Lord 
Mayor. I l>elieve there are no persons indented whose inden- 
tures are not entered in that book. The book begins in May, 
1699, and contains the entries for the year 1728. The name 
156 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

of James Axmesley 13 not found among the names entered to Henry Gonne 
Thomas Hendry between 21st March, 1727, and 26th March, 
1728, but it appears that one James Hensly was indented on 
26th March, 1728. I believe the name of James Hensly ia 
in my father's handwriting. James Hensly was bound for 
seven years. The town-clerk does not attend when the per- 
sons are indented. The method generally is that either the 
merchant or the master of the ship brings a list of the persons 
to be indented to the Tholsel Office. He leaves that list in 
the office, and the indentures are filled up afterwards. The 
list is given to the to^\'n-clerk from time to time, according as 
the people are indented. 

KicHARD TiGHE, examined — Mr. James Annesley lived with Richard Tigh© 
me for some months while he was a boy. He came to me in 
a verv' poor condition from one Purcell, a butcher, that lived 
at the back of my house in Phoenix Street. He was as low in 
clothes as he could be. I cannot fix the time when he came 
to live with me, but it would he some time after Christmas in 
the year 1727. My son fetched him before I knew of it, 
partly out of charity, I believe, finding him in a low condition 
and turned off by his father, who was reputed to be Lord 
Altham. He would be about thirteen or fourteen years old 
when he came to my house. He continued to stay with me till 
he was transported. 

Do you iememl>er the time of his leaving you? — It was done 
by stealth ; I was told that he was carried off from me. 
While he was with me he wore a yellow livery waistcoat, which 
had been formerly worn by my son's servant. I never saw 
him after he left my service. Shortly after he left I was 
told by one Peter Murphy that he had seen the boy on board 
a .ship. I have never spoken to my Lord Anglesea that I know 
of in my life. I gave the boy no occasion for quitting the 
house. The boy was reputed to be the lawful son of Lord 
Altham who dierl in the November before the boy went away. 
I am a person brefl to the law. 

Did you or did you not, after the death of this boy's father, 
take any steps to assert hia right as son to his father? — None 
at all. I did not trouble myself about him, as he was so 
short a time with me. If he had stayed some time with me 
I might have taken some stops. I have seen James Annesley 
since he came over, and I am fully fjersuaded that he is the 
fK.T8on that lived with me. I heard no more of the boy after 
his leaving Dublin, a mutter of fourteen years ago, till I 
received a letter about him from a friend in Jamaica while 
Admiral Vernon was in the West Indies, in which he related 
the troubles and misfortunes that the boy had gone through. 

157 



The Anncsley Case. 

Richard Tighe Mr. Keilly, an agent for the present Lord Anglesea, applied 
to me for the letter on behalf of his lordship, saying that he 
would return it again. It is still in their hands. A clerk 
of Mr. Colthurst, who I heard was at one time concerned for 
my Lord Anglesea, came to me with an affidavit to swear 
that James Annesley was a bastard. I did not ask this clerk's 
name, but he told me that he was with Mr. Colthurst. I 
said I woukl swear no such thing as that James Annesley was 
a bastard. James Annesley left my house some time in April, 
1728. 

Cross-examined — I had never heard a word about this boy 
when he was at Purcell's, and when he came to me he came 
by stealth. I never saw Purcell till yesterday. I do not 
recollect any particular person that told me that he looked 
upon the boy as his lordship's son. Although he was in very 
low circumstances when he came into my house, I believed 
him to be Lord Altham. 

If you were fully persuaded of that, would you have clad 
him in an old waistcoat that was taken off another boy? — I 
would, indeed, for he wanted it greatly. He was employed in 
the lower offices of my house, and attended on my son. 

Did you not know at that time that the present Earl of 
Anglesea took upon him the title of Altham? — I did, but I 
knew little of him. I do not remember saying to anybody 
that the boy was the real heir of Lord Altham, and that the 
present earl had no title. If you had thought so would you 
not have mentioned it to somebody? — I never did, for he went 
80on after from me, and I heard no more of him for fourteen 
years. My son is dead. When the boy came to my house 
he was just out of the smallpox, as appeared from the redness 
of his face. I don't know whether he had shoes and stockings, 
but the servants told me that they had washed him in a tub 
to make him clean. I believe they had stripped him of his 
bad clothes before they showed him to me. I should have 
been at a great loss to know what had become of the boy had 
it not been for another boy, Peter Murphy, that went down 
to the ship, and lived with me afterwards. I was sure he was 
kidnapf)ed by the account I got from Peter Murphy, who said 
he saw him on board, that he found him roaring and crying, 
and saying he was forced away by his uncle. I made no 
inquiries about the ship, nor did I make any application with 
resfvect to the boy. I never spoke of the matter to any 
magistrate. 

Did you not know it was a crime to take him away? — No 
doubt it was. 

Did you not look upon it to be your duty, if you thought 
him to be a real peer of this land, to make a proper inquiry 
about him? — I never had any right to inquire into it. 
158 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

I desire an answer to my question ? — I had nothing to say to Riehard Tighe 
it, and therefore I never did think I had any right to stir in 
it, for he was only with me a few months. I did not know 
that I should ever see him again, and therefore I was not 
going to put myself to trouble and expense about the matter. 

Do you think it would have put you to sixpence of expense 
to have given an account of this to the Lord Chief Justice? — 
Yes, I believe it would. It might have brought me into a 
scrape or given me a good deal of trouble. I don't know 
where it would not have ended. Would not my Lord Altham 
have risen in arms against me? He would have been in a 
great rage, and no boy here to produce. I knew Arthur, the 
late Earl of Anglesea, but I was not thoroughly acquainted 
with him. I can't say in what state of friendship he was 
with Lord Altham, the father of this boy. I got no account 
of the boy being on board the ship except from Peter Murphy. 
Peter Murphy went away about ten or twelve years ago. 

John Broders, examined — I dwelt in Pennsylvania, in John Brodeps 
America, fourteen or fifteen years ago, and I saw Mr. Annesley 
there. My brother and I were travelling on the road one cold 
morning, and we went into a house to warm ourselves. As we 
were there a boy came in with a gun in his hand and a dead 
squirrel. He said he was servant to the man of the house, 
and he told us that he came from the county of Wexford. 
We told him that we both came from that county, and were glad 
to see him, and asked him his name. He said that he was 
Lord Altham's son, and he described the situation of Lord 
Altham's house at Dunmaine. I have not seen that person again 
since I saw him in Dublin twelve months ago. To the best 
of my knowledge, it is he that gave me an account of the house 
of Dunmaine, and of who was his father. When I saw him in 
Dublin he told me on what side of the road his master's house 
was in Pennsylvania. 

Can you take upon yourself, either from your converse with 
him or the remembrance of his person, and by face of the 
gentleman that was shown to you here, to say whether he is or 
is not the same person as you saw in America? — I cannot 
swear that he is the same person. 

Did you ever tell to any person about your having met with 
such a gentleman as Mr. Annesley in America, and what 
passed between you? — I told it on board the ship in America 
before I came home. There are people in Dublin that can say 
that they heard me tell it above ten years ago. 

John Giffaud, examined — I know the plaintiff, Mr. JnmoB John Glffard 
Annesley. I do not know when it was that he arrived in 
England from the West Indies. 

159 



The Annesley Case. 



John Glffard Do you know of any prosecution carried on against the 
plaintiif by the defendant for murder? 

[This question was objected to on the ground that what had 
taken ph\ce in a previous case could not be evidence in this 
one. After some argument the question was postponed till the 
next day.] 

Abel Butler Kev. Mr. Abel Butlek, examined — I am curate of Tyntern, 
in the county of Wexford. The Parish Church of Dunmaine 
goes by the name of Owenduffe, which is united to the parish 
of Tyntern. I have known this parish for eleven years next 
January. There are no books in either of the parishes wherein 
the births or christenings of children are registered. 

J. Barton JosHUA Barton, examined — I was very well acquainted with 
the late Lord Altham, and often ate and drank with him. One 
particular night I was in his company at Inchicore till about 
four o'clock in the morning. I was free with him that night, 
and asked him if he would not be angry if I said something to 
him. He said that I could say what I liked, and so I asked, 
" Is that young lad that you let ramble up and down and suffer 
to want your son?" "Yes," says he, "he is my son by my 
lawful wife." And then he told me that on account of a woman 
that he kept he could not do anything for him, because she 
woidd not suffer him about the house. I don't know the name 
of the woman that he kept. I don't know what circumstances 
my lord was in at this time, but he had some pension from the 
Crown — some said £200 and some said £100 a year. This 
conversation took place about a year before he died. I believe 
he was needy enough, because I know when he kept a pack of 
hounds in the kennel one hound would eat another. 

Cross-examined — At this time my father lived next door to 
Inchicore House, and I used to go to see him. I saw that the 
boy was in a very poor condition. He lay in the hedges up 
and down to see if the servants would give him a bit. 

How long was this before my lord died? — A year or two 
years — a good while, I cannot well tell. I never spoke to my 
lord about this boy on any other occasion. I very often gave 
the boy something to eat and drink. I believe he was in that 
poor condition for three or four years before my lord's death. 
I believe my lord lived at Inchicore for six or seven years before 
he died. 

For how many years did the boy continue about Inchicore 
after you first observed him? — I believe for a good while, but 
I cannot tell how long. I believe I would see him there within 
the year before my lord died. He went to several people in the 
town, and then he would be back now and again. I believe the 
i6o 



Evidence for PlaintiiF. 

boy would be in that poor condition for two years after I spoke J. Barton 
to my Lford Altham. I frequently saw my Lord Altham. 

And yet you say you never spoke to him again about this 
boy? — I never did. Would you have me go to speak to such 
a man as that? He knew his own business best. I never saw 
any relation of the family dine with my lord when I was there. 
I am certain I asked him whether the boy was his lawful son. 

Why did you say lawful? — Because he took no care of him. 
I do not remember what o'clock it was when I asked this ques- 
tion, because I had no watch with me, but I remember it was 
four o'clock when I came home that night, because I looked at 
the clock at home. I once before sat up so late with my lord. 
At other times I left him whenever I could get away from him. 
It was towards the latter end of the evening when I asked the 
question. My lord was not drunk, for he came into the fields 
to see me go away. This took place in the summer time. I 
know that I was not drunk, because I came home well enough. 



Fifth Day, Wednesday, i6th November, 1743. 

[The question of the admissibility of Mr. Giffard's evidence 
being received was resumed, the objection being that Mr. Giffard, 
as an attorney, was bound to keep the secrets of his client, 
and ought not to be permitted to disclose them. After a pro- 
longed argument, the Lord Chief Baron said that the Court 
wished to hear what the witness had to say relative to his 
being an attorney. He was accordingly called.] 

John Giffard, examined — I am an attorney of the Common jqj,^ Qlffard 
Pleas in England, and a solicitor of the High Court of Chancery. 
I know the defendant, the Earl of Anglesea. In the year 1722 
he employed me to assist him on a particular occasion to make 
his defence in the case of the King against him us Kicliard 
Annesley, Esq. I was also employed in the same year when 
an action was brought against him at the suit of one George 
Risden. From the year 1722 till lie became Earl of Anglesea I 
never heard of him. In the year 1737 I met him in London, 
and he desired me to solicit an affair between him and his 
countess that lived at Biddulph. 

Name the cause? — Between the Riglit Honourable Morris 

Thompson, Lord Haversham, and the Earl of Anglesea. I was 

concerned in another cause the same year in connection with 

the late Earl of Anglesea's will. I was concerned in a number 

M 161 



The Annesley Case. 



John Clffard of otlicr causes, tlie Eaii of Anglesea v. Mrs. Simpson, the Earl 
of Anglesea •*'. Henderson, and the Earl of Anglesea v. Kachael 
Cooper. I issued out writs against Henderson at the suit of 
one Banks by Lord Anglesea's directions, and I was also sent 
for and commanded by my lord to solicit and carry on a 
prosecution against the plaintiff, Mr. Annesley. I have not 
been concerned in any other cause for the Earl of Anglesea 
since the prosecution of Mr. Annesley. I was retained by the 
Earl on the 2nd of May, 1742, to carry on the prosecution for 
murder. The conversations that passed between me and my 
lord were from 7th December, 1741, to the time of Mr. Annes- 
ley's being discharged at the Old Bailey. The bill of indictment 
was found against Mr. Annesley in June, and he was admitted 
to bail in July. The murder was laid in the indictment on 
the 1st of May, 1742. I was not concerned for his lordship 
in any other causes than what I have before mentioned, and 
they were all determined. 

Was not the conversation before 2nd May on some affair in 
■which my Lord Anglesea consulted and advised with you as 
his agent or solicitor, designing to employ you in that affair? 
— No, it was not, for I did not expect to be employed by him 
again, he having employed Mr. George Garden and Mr. Adam 
Gordon, attorneys. I received my instructions in a great part 
from them. My lord ordered me to take directions from them, 
and I have instructions under Gordon's own handwriting. 

Had my Lord Anglesea those conversations with you relative 
to the plaintiff between 7th December and 2nd May as intending 
to employ you or not? I never was employed or intended to be 
employed in any suit for or against him during that time. I 
first received instructions from Messrs. Garden & Gordon the 
first week in May. I had no instructions from them except 
what were relevant to the prosecution in relation to the 
plaintiff. 

Did you charge Lord Anglesea with any term fees in the 
year 1741 relative to particular suits? — I believe I charged 
10s. 4d. for Lord Haversham's suit. I find that cause was 
concluded before the Easter term came. 

Were you concerned for Lord Anglesea from the latter end 
of November to the beginning of January, 1741? — I was 
concerned in issuing out some writs. 

Do you not think, if any suit had depended on them, you 
-would have been concerned? — I don't know but what I might. 

Counsel for the defendant objected on the ground that an 
attorney shall i:ot disclose anything whatsoever in a collateral 
question that shall affect the property of the client. 

After an argument, the Court stated that they were of 
opinion that the witness should be examined. 
162 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

Eiamination continued — I know the present Earl of Anglesea John Giffard 
and Mr. Annesley. Some time between the 7th December, 
1741, and May, 17i2, my Lord Anglesea had an appeal to the 
House of Lords in England between Charles Annesley and him- 
self, and, having that suit and a good many others, he was 
very uneasy at it. He said he would be very glad to send to 
the present plaintiff, and_, if he would give him £2000 or £3000 
a year, he would surrender up to him the titles of Anglesea 
and Altham and the estate, and go over to France and live 
there, and then he wovild be much easier and happier than to 
be tormented with those people that were suing off him, for 
he would rather his brother's son sliould have it than any other 
person. He said that, if Jemmy had the estate on those terms, 
lie should live much happier and easier in France than he was 
here, where he was tormented by law, that it was his right, 
and he would surrender it to him (for he did not value the 
title) rather than that Frank and Charles Annesley and those 
that were striving to take it from him should have it. He 
added that he would send for a gentleman to teach him the 
French tongue to qualify him to live in that kingdom, and 
accordingly he sent for one Mr. Stephen Hayes, an oflficer in 
the French service. My lord had him in the house a consider- 
able time on purpose to converse with him in French. I saw 
him there forty times. That conversation took place about 
March, 1741, and he continued in that resolution till May, 
1742. 

What altered that resolution then? — Why, on 1st May Mr. 
Annesley had shot a man at Staines, upon which my lord sent 
for me and ordered me to go to Staines to inquire into the 
affair, to collect the evidence and carry on the prosecution, 
and to follow the directions of Messrs. Garden & Gordon, with 
the assistance of one Mr. Jans, who was a surgeon. I accord- 
ingly did so. Three or four days after my lord told me that 
they had consulted together, and had advised him not to be 
seen to converse with me, for it was not proper for him to 
appear in the prowecution for fear of its hurting him in the 
cause that was coming on between him and the plaintiff ; and 
that he did not care if it cost him .£10,000 if he could get the 
plaintiff hanged, for then he should be easy in his titles and 
estates. My lord told me that I should apply to Mr. Jans, 
who would from time to time supply me with money, because 
he had ordered him to do so, and accordingly I had money 
from liim. Mr. Jans was my Lord Anglcsea's companion, 
manager, and ajreiit, and managed everything for liim. 

Cross-examined — 1 had the first converfiation with the 
defendant as to iiis desirinfj Mr. Annesley to be sent to some 
time before 10th March, 1741. I don't know where Mr. 
Annesley was at this time, but I believe he was in P]ngland. 

«63 



The Annesley Case. 



John Giffard Do you know for what purpose it was that my lord aaid 
these words to you? Was it with an intent that you should 
apply to Mr. Annesley? — No, I don't believe it was. 

Do you know of any ste{)s that were taken in order to get 
this accommodation that my lord desired? — I don't know of any. 

How soon after this 10th of March, 1741, was it that you first 
saw this Frenclnnan with my lord? — Near about that time, but 
I cannot tell exactly. He was not a Frenchman; I believe he 
was an Irish gentleman, a tenant's son of my lord's. 

Did you ever hear anything of my lord's applying for an 
accommodation? — It was very often talked in the house that 
one Mr. Paterson and one Mr. Mackercher should be sent to. 
I know of my own knowledge that no steps were taken towards 
an accommodation. The notes that I have been referring to 
to-day are notes which I wrote at the time the diflEerent transac- 
tions happened. The reason I was sent for to carry on the 
prosecution under Messrs. Garden & Gordon was that I had 
been a coroner myself in the county of Devon for twelve or 
fourteen years, and I was therefore thought to be a proper 
person. I went on with the prosecution till there was a verdict. 
I attended the coroner's inquest and collected evidence, and 
drew the brief. The indictment was found on the inquest of the 
coroner, who took the examinations of the witnesses short, as 
memorandums. The bill was found upon the evidence of the 
son of the deceased and others viva voce before the grand jury. 
I was told that Sir Thomas Reynolds took some examinations 
in writing, and I applied to him for them, but he refused me. 
I applied to him a second time for them, and he told me he 
had consulted with Sir John Gonston, and that no examina- 
tions should be shown till they were produced in Court. Most 
of the witnesses examined before the coroner were examined 
before the Court on the trial, and a great many more. A matter 
of forty people were examined. My brief was framed from the 
examinations of witnesses that I took myself. The case upon 
the trial differed vastly from tliat which appeared upon the 
examinations before the coroner. The finding of the coroner's 
jury was wilful murder. The case against Mr. Annesley was 
stronger upon the coroner's inquest than it was upon the trial, 
because the main evidence was taken off on the trial. 

Had my Lord Anglesea any hand in taking off the main 
evidence? — No. 

Who then took it off? — It was the prisoner who took it off j 
the evidence of the chief witness for the prosecution was rendered 
invalid. His evidence was given in Court, but it was discredited 
in Court by reason of his character, and there was a strong 
reason given for it by a witness Paul Keating, who was for the 
prisoner. The main witness that swore against the plaintiff 
164 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

on his trial was John Egglestone, who was brought to me by John Giffard 

one Williams that keeps " The White Horse " tavern in 

Piccadilly, when he varied from the evidence he had given 

before Sir Thomas Reynolds. I was not present when he gave 

that evidence, but it was declared so in Court. The deed for 

which Mr. Annesley was prosecuted was committed at Staines 

about one or two o'clock in an afternoon. It appeared to have 

been done in a meadow, and at the trial it appeared there were 

present John Egglestone, John Fisher, John Bedsworth, and 

one more, I think. 

Were there any other of the witnesses that appeared on that 
prosecution that were discredited on account of their character 
than Egglestone? — There was a variation iu their testimony, 
but that they were discredited for their character I cannot 
Bay. The trial, I believe, was held on 14th July, 1742, and 
the coroner's inquest was held on 4th May, 1742. When my 
Lord Anglesea said to me that he did not care if it cost him 
£10,000 to get the plaintiff hanged, I understood that it was 
his resolution to destroy him if he could. I did not advise my 
Lord Anglesea not to carry on the prosecution ; I did not pre- 
sume to undertake to advise him. When he said that he did 
not care if it cost him £10,000 if he got the plaintiff hanged 
I don't know what answer I made, and I can't say that I either 
approved or disapproved of his expressions and design. I went 
on as effectually with the prosecution afterwards as I could. 
I advised my Lord Anglesea not to appear upon the trial. 

Since my lord had told you that he would agree with the 
plaintiff and go to France and disappoint Charles Anneslej', 
how came you not to tell him that if he hanged this pretender 
it would frustrate his designs and the expectations he had? — 
In answer to what you say (that if the pretender, as you call 
him, were hanged there would be a greater fund left than 
£2000 or £3000 a year to go abroad with), it certainly would 
destroy that project of disappointing Mr. Annesley, but tlien 
it would put a greater estate in his ovm pocket. 

Was it not the intention of the prosecution to disappoint the 
Annesleys? — No, the intention was to put this man out of the 
way that he might enjoy the estate easy and quiet. 

When my Lord Anglesea said that he would not care if it 
ci>st him £10,000 so he could get the plaintiff hanged, did 
you apprehend fiom that that he would be willing to go to 
that expense in the prosecution? — I did. 

Did you suppose from that that he would dispose of that 
£10,000 in anv shape to 1)iing about the death of the plaintiff? 
— I did. 

Did you not appiclu iid that to be a most wicked crime? — I 
did. 

•65 



The Annesley Case. 



John Siftai-d If so, how could you, who set yourself out as a man of busi- 
ness, engage in that project without making any objection to 
it? — I may as well ask you how you came to be engaged for 
the defendant in this suit. I cannot remember whether it 
was before or after the coroner's inquest that my Lord Anglesea 
told me that he did not care if it cost him £10,000 to get the 
plaintiff hanged, but it was then or thereabouts. The inquest 
was held on the ith of May, and I came home on the 6th, 
and I believe it would be that day, because my lord met me at 
Hounslow in his coach and six to know how things went on. 
I have made memorandums about my business, but I have 
never entered in writing private conversation in any company. 

Was it not upon the day he sent for you to go down to 
Staines that he said these words? — I cannot say more than I 
know. I believe it was not; I believe it was after or just 
upon holding the coroner's inquest. 

Did you not understand from that that he would lay out 
that money in any shape to compass the death of this man? — 
I cannot tell. My lord is very apt to be flashy in his discourse. 

Did you not apprehend it to be a bad purpose to lay out 
money to compass the death of another man? — I don't know 
but I did. I do believe it, sir; but I was not to undertake that 
bad purpose. If there was any dirty work I was not concerned 
in it. 

If you did believe this, I ask you how you came to engage 
in this prosecution without objection? — I make a distinction 
between carrying on a prosecution and compassing the death 
of a man. 

How came you to make that distinction? — I may as well 
ask Eow the counsel came to plead the cause. I never men- 
tioned to any of my counsel that my lord had made that 
declaration. 

If you had told any of them that my lord had made that 
declaration, would they have appeared for you? — I cannot tell 
whether they would or not. 

Do you think any honest man would? 

Mr. Bai;on Mountenkt — An attorney might think himself 
well warranted by the verdict found upon the coroner's inquest 
to prosecute and not think it a bad action. 

The Witness — I believe they would, or else I would not have 
carried it on, sir. I do assure you it is the only cause I was 
ever concerned in at the Old Bailey in my life, and it shall be 
the last. 

Cross-examination continued — I believed then, and I believe 
now, that my lord's engaging in that prosecution was because 
the man set up a title to his estate, and not on account of 
his killing the man at Staines. 

Do you not believe it was an unlawful purpose? — I cannot 

1 66 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

help that. I was employed by the church warden of Staines John Giffard 
to prosecute. I should not have been concerned upon any 
account whatsoever had I not the sanction of the coroner's 
inquest for wilful murder, which I thought a justification of the 
prosecution. The church warden wrote me a letter, dated 8th 
May, 1742 — "Pray prosecute James Annesley," &c., signed 
"Stephen Bolton." 

Was not this after my lord declared that he would spend 
£10,000 to get him hanged? — It was. I don't know of any 
money being given to any witness to appear and give evidence. 
About half a crown a day was given for their attendance. 
If there was any dirty work, I knew nothing of it. The 
prosecution cost £800, and the total remaining due to me is 
£330 odd. I do not believe anybody was present when I had 
this conversation with my lord. We used to converse together 
alone frequently. Mr. Jans was never present. 

Was Thompson Gregory present when he went and brought 
you to my lord? — He came with me, and he remained in the 
room. This was on 2nd May. 

Had you that day any discourse about the sum of money 
that my lord would spend? — Not that day. It was on the 
advice of Messrs. Garden & Gordon that the letter was sent to 
me by the church warden of Staines. 

Were you privy to it? — Yes, I was. This letter was advised 
in order that the defendant might not appear in the prosecution. 

Did you not know that this was to give a colour? — I did. 

Did you think this was for a good purpose? — Messrs. Gordon, 
Garden, and Jans and Lord Anglcsea had a consultation, and 
it was thought proper that I should have another person to my 
assistance, because they would not appear, and my instructions 
were to send this oider to the church warden and get it signed, 
so that my lord should not appear in it. The reason was that 
if my lord should appear in it they thought it would be attended 
with ill consequences. 

Did you know at the time of the trial that Mr. Annesley 
intended to sue for the title and estate of Lord Anglesea? — It 
was reported that he intended to do s(j, and this was in order 
to prevent it. If Mr. Annesley gains this suit I shall lose 
every shilling of my bill of costs. I am very well acquainted 
with Thomas Smith, the cabinetmaker. 

Had you any discourse with him about this evidence that 
you have given to-day? — I have had some discourso with him 
about it. 

Did you not tell him that you had been ill-used, and that 
that provoked you to give in this evidence? — No, I never did, 
for he knew that I had been ill-used. I'll tell you what I have 
said to him — that it was a wrong step for my lord to have 
taken, for this bill of costs of mine would nevur have con)(' to 

ir,7 



The Annesley Case. 



John Glffard light had I not been obligcxl to sue for my right ; that my lonl 
had tiled a bill in the Exchequer in England against me to 
disclose what business I had dt)ne for him, and that I was 
obliged in my justification to annex in a schedule my bill of 
costs. 

Did you not look upon my Lord Anglesea as your real client 
in the prosecution of the plaintiff? — lie promised to pay me, 
but I did not look upon him as my immediate employer, because 
he told nie he had directed Mr. Jans to employ me. I looked 
upon Mr. Jans as my client at this time. 

Do you not believe that my lord had these discourses with 
you as his attorney? — No, for I knew I was never to be con- 
cerned in the cause. I looked upon it to be discourse with me 
as a friend. 

Was not the discourse with you on 4rth and 5th May as hia 
attorney or solicitor? — I looked upon him to be my client. 

And therefore did he not look upon you as his solicitor? — I 
cannot tell what he did. 

Did he meet you as his friend or solicitor? — Sir, there was 
another man with me. 

Were you not employed by him to see the inquest held? — 
I was. I wish you would produce any person to attempt to 
prove that I am a dishonest man. I have had a great many 
clients in the course of twenty odd years, and I certainly look 
upon it as a rule of prudence and honour for attorneys to keep 
religiously the secrets of their clients. I should think that if 
a solicitor or attorney discloses those secrets he is a very bad 
man. 

How then came you to disclose this secret? — I would not 
have disclosed this if I had not been obliged to do it by my 
lord's filing a bill in the Exchequer to disclose what business 
I had done for him. My lord is a man subject to passion and 
heat, and he is hasty and rash in his expressions. 

At the time when he talked to you about giving up these 
things to Jemmy was he not chagrined and in a passion? — He 
was far from being in a passion, and he asked my opinion 
whether it was proper for him to do it. 

Was not the reason he gave this, that he did not value his 
titles, and sliould live easier in France? — It was. 

Was it a conscientious scruple or his desire of ease? — I 
believe it was both. The reason of it was that he w-as extremely 
angry with the Annesleys because tliey pulled away money too 
fast from him. 

Was not this said out of the effects of his chagrin at this 
time, or out of spleen to Charles Annesley? — No, I believe he 
said it for his own sake, for his own advantage, because the 
cause then coming on with the present plaintiff made him 
desirous to be easy. I cannot tell whether there was any inter- 
i68 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

■course or treaty set on foot between him and Mr. Annesley. John GifFard 
I have heard Mr. Jans several times advise my lord to leave 
the three kingdoms. 

In your answer to the bill in the Exchequer did you insert 
that declaration that my lord made you ? — I wonder you would 
ask that question. It has no relation to the bill. I swore 
before the examiner in London that my lord made that declara- 
tion. I also mentioned it when the managers of Mr. Annesley 
■came to me to know if I knew anything of this matter. 

What managers? — Mr. !Mackercher, Mr. Paterson, and two 
or three more. I was served with a subpoena. They applied 
to me to go to Ireland, and said that I must go, and they 
asked if I was to give them the trouble of sending me a 
subpoena. I told them I would not give them the trouble. 

Did you not say that you would not have given evidence 
here except you had been forced to it? — Why, sir, is not that 
a force? If a man applies to me and says he will subpoena me, 
must not I obey that subpcena? I have heard my Lord Anglesea 
say fifty times since the first discourse between us that this 
pretender, as he called him, was transported for stealing a silver 
spoon. I cannot recollect any of those fifty times, but it was 
between 7th December, 1741, and lith July, 1742. 

Upon your oath, did you ever hear my lord say that the 
plaintiff was a bastard? — Yes, I have heard him say he was 
his own bastard, and I have heard him say that he was his 
brother's bastard. I have heard him say that he got the wench 
with child, and made her lay it upon his brother, because he 
■was better able to maintain it than himself. 

Did you hear him say that as often as you heard him speak 
of the silver spoon? — That is not possible for me to charge my 
memory with. I have heard him say both very often. When 
he said he got liim transported he said he stole the silver 
spoon. 

Was any one present when he said this? — Yes, I will tell 
you one, one Rolph, who said he was in bed with her along 
with my lord. Kolph was one of the company at my lord's 
lodgings in Bury Street. 

What was it my lord said then? — "What do you say to 
tliis," says he, " here's Rolph says he was in the bed at the 
same time, and knows the pretender is a bastard." I believe 
this was at the same time as when my lord mentioned the 
stealing of the silver spoon. 

CoUiNHBL FOR TUB Plai.ntiff — My lords, we have many othei- 
witnesses to examine for tlie plaintiff, but we rest here now 
with liberty to produce f)ther witnesses if occasion there be 
when the witnesses for the defendant are examined. 

Evidence for thf Plaintijf closed. 

169 



Evidence for the Defendant. 

The Attorney-General opened the case for the defendant. 

N, Loftus Nicholas Loftds, examined — I have livetl at Loftua Hall, 
in tho county of Wexford, for above thirty-live years. Loftus 
Hall is about 8 miles from Dunmaiue. I have heard that my 
Lord and Lady Altham lived at Dunmaine, but I never visited 
there. I know the place called Koss very well. I never heard 
of my Lady Altham's ever having had a child while she lived 
at Dunmaine. My wife was living at that time, but she did 
not visit at Dunmaine, nor did Lady Altham visit at my house. 
I never heard of any rejoicings at Koss or anywhere else on 
account of the birth of any child that my Lady Altham had. 

Was it the reputation of the country that my Lady Altham 
ever had a child? — I never heard it. Lord Anglesea's estate 
in the county of Wexford is reputed to be worth about £400(> 
or £5000 a year. I had a very slender acquaintance with 
Arthur, late Earl of Anglesca, and I can give no account of 
the terms on which he and the late Lord Altham lived with 
one another. I cannot recollect where I was at any particular 
time in 1715, but I had no call that would take me from my 
house unless it was to Parliament. I believe I was at home in 
the summer time. Lady Altham was shown to me in a window 
once at Koss, and I was told it was she. 

Cross-examined — In 1712 I was in England, and I came 
over here in the beginning of 1713. Lady Bessborough died 
in May of that year, and after that, and for a good part of 
1714, I stayed at Bessborough at the request of Lord Bess- 
borough. In the year 1715 I was fixed in my own house at 
Loftus Hall. 

T. Painsc? Tii0MA3 Pallisbr, the elder, examined — I knew the late Lord 
and L-.idy Altham. I used to live at the Great Island, 2 or 3 
miles from Dunmaine, where Lord and Lady Altham resided. 
They were often in my family, and I was in theirs from the 
time they came to the county of Wexford till they left it. 

I ask you whether my Lord Altham had a child by anybody 
or no? — I heard that he had a child by Joan Landy, but never 
by Lady Altham, and I am satisfied in my conscience that Lady 
Altham never had a child at Dunmaine, I am positive of 
that, because I saw her so often, and I never knew her sick 
an hour all the time she was at Dunmaine. We would be 
visiting once a week or once a month, sometimes more and 
170 



Evidence for Defendant. 

sometimes less. Very often they desired my eldest son to go T. Paillser 
to Dunmaine to divert them on Sundays when they came from 
church, and very often he played the truant to go there. I 
never heard that Lady Altham was with child, directly or 
indirectly, nor was it ever so reputed. I never knew her to 
keep her chamber except when she had no mind to see some 
ruffians of people that used to come to her house. By the 
virtue of my oath, I never knew of her keeping her chamber on 
account of any indisposition. I never in my life heard that 
she had miscarried. If she had miscarried, I am sure I should 
have known it sooner than any one else. She very often came 
to the church at Kilmackee. I never observed by the appear- 
ance of her body that she was with child, nor did I ever hear 
such a thing from any man or woman. I am aware that my 
lord and lady separated, but I cannot tell the exact time. It is 
said that they were about two years and more together at 
Dunmaine. My lady remained at Ross for about two years 
and a half after the separation, so far as I know. Ross is about 
3 miles from Dunmaine. I never heard Lord or Lady Altham 
say anything about their having or not having any children, 
but I heard that there was a boy got there by Joan Landy. 
I am satisfied that my lady could not be brought to bed or 
miscarry but I and the whole neighbourhood must have known 
it, because of the visits between her and the whole neighbour- 
hood. She was visiting not only with us, but with the beat 
people in the country. I am sure that while my lord and 
lady were at Dunmaine there was never a month passed without 
my seeing either one or tlie other, if not both of them. To the 
best of my judgment, I was never two months without seeing 
my lady, but I cannot take it upon me to say that I was not 
six weeks willidut seeing her. 

In all the visits that you ever made, was any child ever 
presented to you as the child of my Lady Altham? — I never 
heard it from man, woman, or child, by the contents of the 
Book I have n(Mv taken. I knew a woman called Joan LafTan. 
She was a servant witli us, but I had to turn her off for whoring. 

Do you take her to be a woman to be believed upon her oath 
or noti — Upon my word, not one of the country will give her 
the credit to be trusted with a potato. She is an infamous 
woman. 

You must not go into particul.irs. Answer as to her general 
character. Is she to be believed on lier oath? — By the virtue 
of my oath, I don't believe she is to be believed. T do not 
think she is to be credited, and really the whole i)arish have 
that (»(iinion of her. 

Oross-examined — I believe I lived in tlie (Jreat Island in 171.T, 
but I cannot be positive. I was living backwards and forwards 

171 



The Annesley Case. 



T. PalUser from the barony of Forth to the Great Island. I was building 
then in the barony of Forth. I might have been a fortnight 
or tlirce weeks at my building in the year 1714. I don't think 
I was six weeks together there, but I will not take it upon me 
to swear to the time. I was in the Great Island at Christmas 
in the year 1714. 1 cannot recollect where my Lord and Lady 
Althain were at Christmas, 1714. 

Did you visit them from 1st September, 1714, to 1st Novem- 
ber, 1711? — I can only say that from the time of their coming 
into the country to the time of their going out of it I visited 
them. 

Upon your oath, did you see Lord and Lady Altham at any 
time in the month of May, 1714? — I can only tell you that I 
visited them from the time they came into the countiy till they 
left it. I believe the barony of Forth, where I was building, 
is about IS miles from Dunmaine. I had 1000 acres in the 
barony of Forth which I let to tenants, keeping only 50 or 60 
acres in mj- own hands. I have never stayed for six weeks in the 
barony of Forth unless I had the gout. I purchased the land 
there in 1712, and I began building about a year or two after. 
I built a little now and then. I was never confined there 
•with the gout for two months. 

You say you never stayed there two months at any time? — I 
can't be positive as to the year 1714. I cannot recollect the 
time of the separation of Lord and Lady Altham. I remember 
that there was a dispute about my son then, and he was ill- 
used, but I don't remember anything else. 

Did you see Lady Altham in May or June or July, 1714, 
anywhere? — If they were at Dunmaine I saw them. I know 
Captain Briscoe, but I never knew his wife, although I might 
have seen her. I don't know that I ever saw any of Captain 
Briscoe's daughters. I have heard that Captain Briscoe 
brought my Lady Altham to my lord. I first went to live at 
the Great Island when the Duke of Ormonde sold the first part 
of his esta+e in Ireland. I was living in my house there in 
the year 1713. I cannot tell whether my acquaintance with 
Lady Altham began before or after the death of Queen Anne, 
but I am positive I knew her from the time she came to live 
at Dunmaine until she left, although I cannot tell the year 
that she came. 

Did not your knowledge of this lady commence within these 
six-and-twenty years? — I first knew her when she came to the 
county of Wexford, let that be when it would. I am certain 
that as soon as Lord and Lady Altham came to Dunmaine I 
Baw them. I think I visited them before they visited me, and 
they had been in the country only a very short time then. I 
understand that Captain Briscoe brought Lady Altham to 
Dunmaine House, and I paid a visit, I believe, in a week's 
172 



Evidence for Defendant. 

time. I did not see Captain Briscoe, but he certainly brought T. Palliser 

her there. Captain Briscoe was an intimate acquaintance of 

mine. 

Wlien you heard that Captain Briscoe had come to Dun- 
maine, did you go there to see your old acquaintance? — I 
believe I did not. I suppose I would have other things to do, 
and could not go. To the best of my remembrance, it was in 
the summer time that my lady came to Dunmaine. I cannot 
Bay whether it was before or after harvest, and I cannot tell 
what year they came. I believe they stayed there for two or 
three years without going away, unless for a visit to Dublin. I 
think my lady came to town Mith my lord when he came to 
Parliament. I do not think they were three or four or five 
months away from Dunmaine, because I think it was at the 
latter end of Parliament that they came to Parliament ; they 
came towards Christmas. 

Did they not stay two or three months in Dublin? — I cannot 
tell. I paid but one visit to Lady Altham during that time, 
at Temple Bar, opposite to Dirty Lane. I had seen her several 
times before this. I cannot say how long they stayed there. 
I cannot tell how many years they had lived at Dunmaine before 
I saw my lady at Temple Bar, but, in the whole, they lived 
there two or three years. I don't believe I was for three 
months together in Dublin in my life, except when the regi- 
ment quartered there. I never heard from any person that 
Lady Altham miscarried. 

Might she not miscarry without your knowing it? — I believe 
I must have heard of it as well as if she had got a child. By 
the virtue of my oath, my lady was never sick in bed for a 
month at Dimmaine. She might be a week sick at Dunmaine 
for auglit I know, but she was never reputed to be with child. 
If she had been in bed for a week I should have heard of it. I 
was intimate with all the neighbours that visited her. I never 
knew a visitor to stay a month there, but I am of opinion 
that, if any had been there for two or three months, I should 
have known of it. I don't remember, nor do I know, of 
Captain Briscoe's wife and daughter staying there tliree months. 
If they had been there it is very likely that I would have been 
acquainted with tliem. 

Why is it that you said tliat Joan Laffan was not to be 
believed upon her oath? — I know no more than this, tliat she 
was a girl at mj house, and was turned away for ill-fame. 

Did you ever know tliat this woman foreswore herself? — I 
believe, if it was put together, that many things she said 
could not be credited by anybody. I was never present when 
she was upon her oath. I difl lionr that she Avaa examined in 
our country, and sent to England in a dress wlien slie had not 
the wherewithal to cover her nakedneps. I havf never heard 

173 



T. Palllser 



The Annesley Case. 

that she was p;uilty of perjury. I know Dennis Redmonds, 
and I had a conversation with liim lately ; I knew Captain 
Pipot very well. lie sometimes lived at Tyntern, and I believe 
he was there when I lived in the island. I knew his wife, and 
1 saw her once as a visitor at Dunmaine. She lived about 4 
or 5 miles from Dunmaine. 

Might not a woman miscarry in two years and a half at 
Dunmaine and you know nothing of the matter? — I cannot tell. 

Might not my lady? — I don't believe a word of it. We 
never saw any signs at any time. I do not know whether 
Captain Briscoe's daughter would foreswear herself or not. I 
don't believe that my lady could have miscarried in the two 
years and a half at Dunmaine without my knowing of it some 
time or another. I believe I was in Dublin at the time of the 
Rebellion in Scotland. I was then in Parliament, and I took 
particular notice of my Lord Altham at that time in Dublin, 
because he had lately lost one of his eyes. I never saw him 
at Dunmaine after he had lost his eye. Dennis Redmonds was 
a servant with me when he was a boy. I believe he was a 
servant in Lord Altham's family, rubbing the horses' heels or 
some such thing. The last time I saw him was about a year 
ago, when he was sent to me by one Mr. Orfeur. I said to him 
that I heard that he was to be one of the witnesses, and I asked 
him what he had to say in the affair. He told me that he 
had nothing further to say than that he was sent to Ross for 
a midwife, and that he dropped her at the gate, but he did 
not know for what cause or for what reason, or for anything 
else. I said to him, " What child is this that was talked of 
to be my Lord Altham's," and he said, " Everybody knows 
that." I told him that his coming here would be of no use 
either to the one side or the other, and he replied that, even 
if he was pressed to go, he would not appear at all. I did 
not speak to any of the other witnesses for the plaintiff but 
Redmonds. 

You say that you never saw Lord Altham after he lost his 
eye? — I never did say so. I said that I had never seen him at 
Dunmaine after he had lost his eye at Dunclody. He never 
lived at Dunmaine after he lost his eye. 



Sixth Day, Thursday, 17th November, 1743. 

William Wall WiLUAM Wall, sworn to the voire-dire — I purchased a lease 
f»f some lands in the county of Dublin from the late Lord 
Altham in 1724, of which I never got possession, they having 
been sold by his lordship to Sir Arthur Langford, on which 

174 



Evidence for Detendant. 

account I got a note from Lord Altham for £50 that is yet William Wall 
unpaid. 

[Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the competency of this 
witness as being a person under bias, but the objection was 
repelled.] 

Examined — I was acquainted with the late Lord Altham and 
his lady from the year 1716 till the time of his death. I do 
not think that Lady Altham had come over to Ireland when I 
first knew his lordship. I was employed by him on several 
occasions in my profession of an attorney. I believe, when 
my lady came over to Ireland, they lodged at Mrs. Vice's house, 
in Essex Street, opposite to my house. I don't know how 
long they stayed there. My lord afterwards lived with my 
lady at Dunmaine, and I was frequently there. I never heard 
that my lord had a child by my lady. As there was great 
intimacy between us, I think he would have told me if he had 
iiad a child. I was employed by my lord in 1725 to draw a 
case on his lordship's title under the wills and codicils of James 
Earl of Anglesea, which I carried to counsel, and they gave 
their opinion that, if my lord had a son and of age, and such 
a son would join with my lord in levying a fine and suffering a 
recovery, then his lordship might dock the entail and sell the 
reversions of such part of the Anglesea estate as he thought fit. 
I said that it was a pity that he had not a son. He never told 
me that he had a legitimate son, but lie often wished that he 
had one. He told me some time after the year 1725 that he 
had an illegitimate son. I never had much discourse with him 
about that son. I saw the boy, and I blamed my lord for not 
giving him bettor clothes and for not taking care of him. I 
never saw the boy in my lord's presence. I saw him in Ross, 
and they told me that he was my lord's illegitimate son. My 
lord never told me so, but he said he was doubtful, and, if he 
thought he was his own son and that he had got him, he would 
take more care of him. I believe this would be about 1727 
or 1728. 

Did he give you any particular reasons for his doubt of this 
child being his? — lie said that many other men had to do with 
hfi-, naming Joan Landy. He said that to me in Ross, to the 
best of my memory. 

Did you ever see this boy? — I cannot say that I saw him, 
but I saw a boy in the street that they said was my lord's 
natural son. I saw this boy in the street at Ross facing 
Hrehon's tavern. I believe he would be about six or seven 
years old. I cannot say whetlier Lord Altham was any time 
at Ross when I saw this boy there. He looked just like a 
poor, common boy about the street. I knew Arthur Earl of 
Anglesea. lie and L(inl Altham did not agree at all to my 
knowledge, and I always understood tliat the enmity continued 

I7S 



The Annesley Case. 



William Wall till Lord Altham died. I don't know whether there was any 
intercourse between them in a friendly wuy, but I have heard 
that Lord Anglesea would nt)t see him. I do not of my own 
knowled<}:e know what became of the Altham estate on the 
death of Lord Altham. I know the present Lord Anglesea. 
Sometimes he and his brother were on good terms, and some- 
times they were not. I knew Lady Altham, but I did not visit 
her when she lodged at Mrs. Vice's. When I went to Dun- 
maine I saw my lady there, but that was very seldom. I 
don't think I would be at the house more than twice before 
they parted. I do not remember in what year they parted. 
I never heard of any discourse of a child by my 
lady, nor do I remember of ever seeing any child in the house. 
My lady had not the appearance to me of a woman being with 
child. I never heard that she had a child by my lord while 
she hved with him. All I ever heard was that my lord left 
no legitimate issue; but I heard some years ago that a gentle- 
man in the West Indies claimed to be his son. I heard that 
my lady had a child by one Mr. Segrave in Holland, but that 
was before she came to my lord. I heard that after she came 
over to Ireland, and I further heard that the child was dead. 
Lord Altham never told me what induced him to take my lady- 
back again. I would not be able to know the boy again that 
I saw at Ross. 

Cross-examined — I do not recollect of having more than one 
discourse with Lord Altham about this child. It would take- 
place in one of the years between 1724 and 1728. I believe it 
was after I took the opinion of counsel on my lord's case. I 
did not know the boy that I saw at Ross. When I saw the- 
boy at Ross I believe Lord Altham was living at Dunmaine. I 
don't know whether Lady Altham was living with my lord at 
that time or in Dublin. I do not think I was at the house of 
Dunmaine that time I was at Ross. I was very often at Ross ; 
I was there every year from 1707 till 1720. I believe it waa 
Edward Brehon who told me who the boy was, and said that 
he was a natural son of Lord Altham. Brehon is still alive. 
To the best of my recollection, I had no discourse with my 
lord about that son before I took the opinion of counsel in 
1725. The counsel gave their opinion in 1725, and my lord 
wished then that he had a legitimate son. Some time after 
I taxed him that he had a son, a beggar in the streets of Ross, 
and I asked him why he did not put some clothes upon him. 
The answer my lord gave me was, " If I was sure he was mine, 
or my own getting, I would take care of him," and named 
Joan Landy. I think that conversation took place some short 
time after I saw the boy at Ross. I often went to Ross in 
company with my lord. I don't know whether he and my lady 
were living together at that time. I first acted for Lord 
176 




>> =a 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Altham some time before 1720. I believe I saw Lady Altham William Wall 
before that. Lord Altham was very poor when I took the 
opinion of counsel, and could have sold to more advantage if 
he had had a son than if he had not. 

Aaron Lambert, examined — I knew the late Lord and A. Lambert 

Lady Altham when they lived at Dunmaine. My lord took 

Dunmaine House and lands from me about the year 1711, and 

my lady first came to live there about two years after. She 

continued there with my lord for two years and a half, as 

near as I can remember. During that time I lived mostly at 

Ross. I lent my lord £500 on his first coming into the country. 

It is impossible for me to tell how often I saw my lord and 

lady at Dunmaine, but it would be every week, and sometimes 

twice a week. I was frequently there because my lord was 

always in my debt, and I was always dunning him. If my 

lady had had a child I must have known of it. I never even 

heard that she had a child, nor did I ever see any child about 

the house. They kept it private from me if they had any. 

When my lord was in Dublin I was ill, and for conveniency 

of an extraordinary good surgeon and the benefit of the air I 

went to Dunmaine House, where Joan Laflfan was, and also 

one Taylor as steward. I stayed there for two months, and 

this woman attended me. That was a considerable time after 

my Lord and Lady Altham's separation. The surgeon was one 

Sutton, who came over from England with Lord Altham and 

lived at Dunmaine. When I lived that time at Dunmaine my 

Lord Altham had let the house to a Mr. Uniack, who did not 

come there till the following May. I heard that Mr. Sutton 

had been in the Mint in England, and broke jail and came 

over with Lord Altham. I suppose he came on account of 

his debts. When Lady Altham came over to Ireland she went 

to Dunmaine, and found that Sutton drank too much of her 

wine, and so she had him turned out of the house, and he went 

to live at Koss. I believe it would be two or three months 

after my lady came to Dunmaine that he was turned out of 

the family. One time when I was dining with Mr. Sutton 

he went to the door, and then he told me that one of my 

lord's servants wanted him. He did not go that time, because 

he had patients in town. He was sent for a second time, but 

wo»ild not go. The third time I saw the chariot come for him, 

and he went away in the chariot. lie attended my lady for 

about a fortnight, to the best of my recollection. I believe 

my lady fir.st came to Dunmaine about two or three years 

after my lord came there. Sutton was sent for about three 

or four months after my lady came, about two months after he 

had been turned out of tlio house. He was angry at my lady 

N 177 



The Annesley Case. 



A. Lambert for haviiii,' been turned out, ;ind would not go the first two 
times he was sent for and said, " Damn her, she has used me 
ill, and I'll be even with her and keep her in punishment." 

I do not know a place c-allcd Farreen between Wexford and 
Dunmaine. I was born at Dunmaine, and lived there until 
I let the house to Lord Altham. I never heard of any such 
man as Brooks, a surgeon. There is a family of Brooks in 
the county of Wexford, but I know nothing of them at all. 
As I have mentioned before, Joan Laffan attended me for 
two months while I was under the care of Sutton. As for her 
general character, she was both a wliore and a thief. Nobody 
would believe her, in my opinion, if she swore all the oaths 
in the universe. I don't remember Joan Lafifan during the 
time my lady was at Dunmaine, as I believe she was obscure 
in the family. I never at any time saw her taking care of 
any child. I was at Ross the day that my lady came at the 
time of the separation. It was duskish when she came. We 
all turned out to see her come. She came in a four-wheeled 
carriage with a pair of horses, and there was a woman in the 
carriage with her called Mrs. Heath. I don't think the 
candles were lighted at that time, but I am not positive. I 
know that I stayed out a considerable time waiting to see 
her. She put up at Captain Butler's, but I never visited her 
after she came to Ross. 

I heard that my Lord Altham had a natural child, but I 
never saw him nor inquired about him. I know a woman 
called Joan Landy. Her father came to me as a cotter a year 
or two before Lord Altham came to Dunmaine. He had two 
daughters, Joan and Elizabeth. I saw Joan about Dunmaine 
House in Lord Altham's time, but whether she was a servant 
or not I could not tell. Her sister went into the county of 
Kildare, and if she is still alive she goes by the name of Dunn. 
I do not recollect her husband's Christian name, but he lives 
within 2 miles of me. I never heard Lord Altham speak of 
Joan Landy. 

While I was acquainted with Lord Altham I was very 
intimate with the defendant. He and Lord Altham sometimes 
lived as brothers and sometimes as enemies. I never heard 
my lord say that he had had a son by my lady. I never heard 
my lady talk of having a son. 

Do you know the occasion of the disputes between Lord 
Altham and the present earl? — I assure you the least thing 
in the world would make a dispute. I remember at one time 
I met Mr. Annesley in Ross out of humour, and I asked him 
what was the matter with him now and he said, " Why, damn 
that Moll Sheffield, she has turned me out of the house on 
account of my principles." I was once in the house when 
178 



Evidence for Defendant. 

they dilBEered about a dog or a hound. The late Lord Altham A. Lambert 
was possessed of most of Ross, and after his death Arthur Earl 
of Anglesea enjoyed it. I have seen my Lord Anglesea's 
receiver receive the rents there. The general reputation of the 
country is that Lord Altham died without lawful issue. I 
believe my Lord Anglesea enjoyed the Ross estate from the 
time of the death of Lard Altham to his own death. I cannot 
exactly tell when Arthur Earl of Anglesea died. 

Cross-examined — By virtue of my oath I was at Dunmaine 
at least once every two months after Lord and Lady Altham 
came there. I believe I was not so much as three months away 
from them at the time, but I am not certain. I was an officer 
in General Langston's regiment. I was married in the year 
Lady Altham came over. I lived for three months with Alder- 
man Jones, of Waterford, but while I was there I went every 
fortnight or three weeks to Dunmaine, which is about 5 miles 
distant. I entered the army the year Lord Altham came to 
Dunmaine. The first year I was quartered at Ross, and we 
were quartered there three times in four years. The officers 
used to do duty for a fortnight, and then they could go where 
they pleased. In 1715 I was in Dublin, but I was not there 
the whole time. I am certain that I never stayed three months 
in Dublin without going into the country. I never stayed three 
months at any quarters without seeing Dunmaine. With regard 
to the £500 that I lent to Lord Altham, I was paid the bulk 
of it by his agents, but some of it remains still due. Mr. 
Sutton was very much affected with the gout when I knew him. 
I remember the death of Queen Anne, but I do not remember 
in what year it was. I cannot tell where Langston's regiment 
was quartered when the Queen died, but I remember our 
going into mourning. 

Were you quartered in Dublin? — I cannot recollect, because 
I have been ill these six years, and I cannot very well remember. 

Has not that sickness impaired youi- memory? — It has not 
as to the particulars I have offered, but it may have if it be 
too much stretched. As my country has been abused, I thought 
it proper to come to town, for I aver that I would not have 
come out of my country for any consideration, but as I saw 
this out-of-the-way affair, though I was to come in a horse 
litter, I would come to testify the truth. I do not remember 
in what barracks or place I was in any one year from the 
death of the Queen to the year 1720. I know Paul Keating. 
The last time I saw and spoke to him would be about half a 
year ago. 

Had you and he any conversation concerning Lady Altliam'a 
having a cliild? — Why, lord, we looked ujioii liim to be a 
minister for some people, and many used to ask him several 

179 



The Annesley Case. 



A. Lambert questions about my lady. I had my joke with him as well 
as many others, but never to have any familiar conversation 
with the man, or to let him have any secret off me, I give 
you my word. I had no conversation about my lady's having 
a child, for I took particular care of him, as I did not like 
the man. 

Did you not tell Keating that my Lady Altham might have had 
a child without your knowledge, because you were often absent 
with your regiment? — Indeed I never did. I told him it was 
next to impossible that she could be brought to bed without 
my knowledge, because of my tenants being all about her and 
me. I believe Lord and Lady Altham stayed here one Parlia- 
ment winter. I cannot say whether I went to Dunmaine in 
their absence. I knew Colonel Dickson — he was married to 
my mother — and I lived with him for some time at ColvirstovsTi, 
which is near Kilcullen Bridge, but that was before I was in 
the army. When I was quartered at Athy I used to go con- 
stantly to see my mother, and then I would go from there to 
Dunmaine. 

Was there not a great fondness between you and Lord 
Altham? — I tell you, sir, he was inconsistent; he would be 
fond of a man one day and be out with him the next. 

Did you frequently stay all night at Dunmaine? — I declare 
I never lay three nights in the house, because it was near my 
own. I had frequent disagreements with him, but then we 
made it up again. On one occasion he wrote to the Government 
to break me, alleging that I was going to set fire to his house, 
when I was in my own, but he afterwards met me when I was 
coming out of the castle and invited me to dine with him. I 
knew Captain Southwell Pigot's father, who lived at Tyntern. 
I also knew Mrs. Pigot. She might visit Dunmaine, but I 
never saw her there in my time. I do not believe she was 
more than three times there in her life. I began to visit 
Lady Altham soon after she came to Dunmaine. I think she 
was attended by Mrs. Giffard, a neighbour of hers, and her 
woman was one Heath. I do not recollect any gentlewoman 
that came from Dublin. 

Did you ever see Mrs. Briscoe there? — I remember that old 
Briscoe was turned out of the collectorship of Wexford, went 
over to England and got into favour with the Duke of Bucking- 
ham, brought over Lady Altham, and kept her incog, until 
he brought my lord and her together, and then they came 
down to Dunmaine. 

Did you ever see Mrs. Briscoe or her daughters there? — I 
never did. I do not know any of the family except the old 
man. I remember a trial at the Naas for murder, when I w'as 
a second to the gentleman tried. I lived at Dunmaine at that 
time, but that was before I went into the army. 
i8o 



Evidence for Defendant. 

William Elms, examined — In the years 1714 and 1715 I William Elms 
lived at Miltown, -which is about a mile and a quarter from 
Dunmaine. I do not know exactly when my Lord and Lady 
Altham first came to Dunmaine, but I remember their being 
there. I went there, sometimes as a visitor and sometimes on 
business, about two years after my lord came first and before 
my lady came. I also went there after my lady came down. 
I was never introduced to her, but I knew her by sight. I 
knew the servants very well at the time my lady was there. 
I remember Anthony Dyer (my lord's gentleman), Martin Neif 
(the smith), Rolph (the butler), and one Cavanagh. I do not 
remember any other men servants. Then I remember Mrs. 
Heath (my lady's waiting gentlewoman), Joan Laffan, and 
Joan Landy (the kitchenmaid). Joan Landy was with child 
at the time my lady came to Dunmaine. She was at this time 
actually in the service. She left shortly after my lady came, 
and I suppose that her being with child was the cause of her 
leaving. She had a brother who lived as a cotter with me, 
and when she was turned from my lord's she came to her 
brother's and stayed there for some time, where I saw her. 
She then went to her father's, where I saw her again. Her 
brother told me one morning that she had been delivered of a 
child. Some time after that I went to her father's house, and 
I asked her whose child it was, and she said, " It is my 
lord's." The child, who was a boy, would then be about a 
week or a fortnight old. I saw him several times at her father's 
house. I saw him when he was half a year old and a year 
old at her father's house, and also at Dunmaine after my Lady 
Altham had loft. I would judge him to be not less than three 
years old at that time. His grandfather's house was at a place 
called Cordran, about a quarter of a mile away from Dunmaine 
House. There was no road between Dunmaine House and 
Landy's house. 

Was there any road made for a coacli after my lady came 
there? — No, not at all. There was a slough there, which was 
cast up on both sides, but not cleaned, and gates. 

IIow long had the gates been there in my lord's time? — They 
were there about the time my lord came down. 

Was the child that you saw at all these peiiods of time one 
and the same child? — It was the same child, to be sure. I 
knew it, for it had not sixpence worth of clothes on it, and 
it was in the same dress always till my lord took it in after 
my lady went away. 

What became of the mother, Joan Landy? — She kept with 
her child. One day when I came to Dunmaine I found my lord 
standing with his back towards the kitchen door and tho child 
playing at his feet. Joan Landy looked in at tho gate, and 

i8i 



The Annesley Case. 



William Elms my lord, seeing her, swore, and called out the men to let out 
the hounds and set them at that whore. He said, while I 
was stiiiiding by his side, that he would not for £500 that the 
child should know that that whore was his mother. 

Did my lord give any directions concerning the house where 
this woman lived? — He ordered it to be pulled down, and 
accordingly it was pulled down. 

Was it upon this occasion? — It was upon this occasion. I 
only once again saw the child at Dunmaine House, I believe 
about a month afterwards. I never heard that my Lady 
Altham had had a child at Dunmaine. If she had had a child we 
would all have heard of it. I never saw Joan Landy's child at 
Dunmaine while my lady lived with my lord. I believe the boy 
would bo about three or four years old when he was first taken 
into Dunmaine House. Up till that time he had always lived 
at James Landy's house, which was a small shepherd's house 
consisting of one room divided into two parts with sods and 
stones across. After the child came to Landy's house there 
was no alteration made in the house, so far as I know. The 
house lay in my way when I was going to Dunmaine House, 
and I never saw any alteration made on it after the birth of 
the child. I never saw any other child in the house. It wore 
some rags and a bit of a flannel blanket, and it had a little 
cap on its head. After my lord took it to his house he seemed 
to be very fond of it, and sent to Ross for a tailor. I am 
certain that this was the same child as I had seen at Landy's 
house. A coach might drive between the two houses, but 
there was no road made that I know of. I saw no furniture 
in Landy's house. There was only a great bed of straw, and 
that with all the bedclothes on it would not be worth one 
shilling. There was no whitewashed room, nor was there a 
fireplace or a looking-glass. There was a great deal of dung 
in the room. I had known Joan Laflan almost since the time 
she was an infant. I cannot recollect in what year she came 
into my lord's service, but it was while my lady was at Dun- 
maine. After my lord and lady left Dunmaine she and on© 
Taylor lived there. 

Do you remember whether she had any child in her care 
after my lord and lady left it? — I cannot tell. I saw her with 
some child there, and I suppose she took some care of it. I 
never saw any child in her care while my lady was at Dunmaine. 
I never spoke to Joan Laffan at my lord's house while my lord 
was there, but I spoke to her afterwards. I often saw her, and 
she would see me. I w-ent into the laundry one day, and my 
lord said, "What, Will, are you going to kiss my maid?" 
" No, my lord," says I, " please, your lordship, I would not do 
such a thing for the world, but she is an old acquaintance of 
182 



Evidence for Defendant. 

mine, and I only came to speak a -word or two to her." I William Elms 
am certain that Joan Laffan cannot deny that I spoke to her 
several times at the house. 

What is the p:eneral character of Joan Laffan? Is she a 
person of credit that should be believed upon her oath or not? — 
I think she should not be believed upon her oath. She is a 
"woman of bad character, though she came from honest people. 
She has known my name for this forty years. 

The Court — Let this woman be brought into Court. 

Joan Laffan, recalled — I have known that gentleman, Mr. -'oan Latfan 
Elms, since I knew anybody. He is the person I mentioned 
the other day, and I believe he has known me since I was born. 
I only remember of seeing him once at Dunmaine, and that 
was in the low parlour after my lady went away, to the best 
of my recollection. 

Do you remember to have been in the laundry when that 
man was speaking to you, and my lord came in and asked him 
if he was going to kiss his maid? — Indeed, by the virtue of 
my oath, I don't. I don't remember that ever he was there 
but the once I mentioned. He lived about 2 miles away, and 
he did not visit the family, so far as I know. In my opinion, 
he is a man to be credited upon his oath; I cannot say any 
harm of the gentleman. 

Had you care of any child at the time he saw you? — Upon 
mv word, I nad the care of Master James Annesley, who was 
in the house more than half a year before Lady Altham went 
away. There never was any other child in the house but 
that one. 

To William Elms — Did that child that you saw at Dunmaine 
House after my lady went away live in the house before she 
went? — Not at all; I do believe verily in my heart my lady 
never set sight on it, nor would not. 

To Joan Laffan — Did you ever tell Mr. Elms that you were 
employed as dry nurse to my Lady Altham's child? — I do not 
think I ever did, because I never conversed with him that 
way. The child usually wore a silk scarlet coat, a velvet coat, 
a gold laced hat and feather. 

William Elms — I never saw such a dress upon the child. 

Joan Lavfan — Tlie child had that dress both before and 
after my la<ly went away. I was for about three years in the 
service, and I do not remember that I spoke twice to Mr. Elms 
in all that time. 

To William Elms — Had you any conversation with that 
woman more than once at Dunmaine? — I have sfioken to her 

'83 



The Annesley Case. 



William Elms several times, and particularly the time when my lord found 
Joan Ljiiian me in the laundry with her. Don't you remember that? 
Can you deny it? 

Joan Laffan — I protest I know nothing of it. I was 
chambermaid. I never was laundrymaid. Joan Landy was 
nurse. 

What was she before the child was born? — She was not a 
servant in my time. When I came to Dunmaine the child 
was at nurse with Joan Landy, who lived in her own house — 
her father's and mother's together — about a quarter of a mile 
away. I did not know that house before the child was sent 
to nurse there, but I was sometimes at the house afterwards. 
It was a handsome house, with handsome things in it. 

William Elms — I was in Landy's house before my lord 
and lady's separation. I never saw any such fine room, and 
there was not any unless it was underground. I saw no furni- , 
ture at all. There was a wall made up with sods and stones. 

Joan Laffan (clasping her hands) — Oh, fie, Mr. Elms. 
I wonder you'll say so. By the Holy Evangelists, there was, 
never a sod in the house. 

William Elms — I continued to stay at Dunmaine House 
while any of my lord's goods were there, and then I went 
to my lorother. I would be in Dunmaine House for a 
full twelvemonth after my lord went away. Besides myself 
there were in the house Mr. Taylor, Dr. Sutton, the kitchen- 
maid, and a gardener. Aaron Lambert was in the house for 
about a month after my lord left ; he lay sick in bed all the 
time. Dr. Sutton was at the house constantly for a year after 
I came. I do not know where he came from, but I know that 
he was an English gentleman. There was a little looking-glass 
that hung on the wall of Landy's house. 

If you had been in the house must you of necessity have 
seen this room? — I must, to be sure, except I had shut my 
eyes. 

Joan Laffan — Workmen were S3nt to make a road from 
Dunmaine House to Landy's house. I saw the road. It was 
made of gravel and such things, and was level. 

Was this one continued road? — There were path-roads, but 
they made a road the whole way for the coach to go by. 

William Elms — There was no beaten road at all. There 
were only places open to let a coach through. Landy's house 
lay on the way from Dunmaine to Captain Giffard's house. 
There might be gravel by the gate w-here Landy lived. 

Do you know on what occasion that road was made? — I 
believe it was to go to Captain Giffard's. 

Was there any coach road beyond the cabin? — No. 
184 



Evidence for Defendant. 

To Joan Laffan — Was it ever known by the neighbours that William Elms 
my lady had a son, and that the child you nursed was that "'^^^ Laffan 
son ? — It is known by two thousand people ; and everybody 
knows it if they would please to tell the truth. 

William Elms — I never heard that my Lady Altham had 
a son, nor did I hear that that child was Lady Altham's. Lady 
Altham very often went over to Mrs. Giffard's, and Mrs. 
Giffard to her. 

Joan Laffan — That was not the road to Captain Gifiard's. 

William Elms — I never saw Mrs. Giffard at Dunuiaine 
House, but I have very often seen her in the coach along with 
my lady. 

What reason had you to give Joan Landy a bad character? 
— When my lord left Dunmaine he left Taylor and this woman 
to take care of the house. The goods were taken away and 
were afterwards found in the possession of this woman. 
Besides that, I heard that she had a child by this man Taylor 
at Dunmaine. The goods that were taken away consisted of 
a feather bed, some casks, and my lord's buckles. They were 
afterwards taken back to Dunmaine House. 

Joan Laffan — The feather bed was my own. There were 
some old feathers in the house w^hen my Lord Altham left it, 
and he gave tl>em to me. I could disgrace you, Mr. Elms, 
and make you appear blacker than you have tried to make me 
if I pleased. 

The Court to Joan Laffan — You may now withdraw. 

William Elms, cross-examined — When my Lord Altham came 
to Dunmaine the servants were Anthony Dj^er (his lordship's 
gentleman), Kolph (the butler), Martin Neif (the smith), one 
Weedon (the coachman), and other servants who are now out 
of my memory. I knew Joan Laffan and Joan Landy. I 
cannot say whether Joan Laffan was a servant when my lord 
came to Dunmaine, but Joan Landy was kitchenmaid. I 
remember Mrs. Heath, my lady's waiting-maid. There were 
two or three cooks, but I do not remember who they were. 

How then can you remember that Joan Landy was the kitchen- 
maid? — Because she had the appearance of being with child 
at that time. I went hunting with my lord, and then when I 
was high constable I used to go to Dunmaine to collect the 
public money. I was high constable in 1717. I do not 
rem<"mber the names of any of the maidservants except Juggy 
Landy. 

How came you to remember her name when you cannot 
remember the names of the other maidservants? — Because she 
waa always very busy about the kitchen, and it was thought 

i8S 



The Annesley Case. 



■ William Elms that Kolph, the butler, and she were together. I saw that 
she was with child when my lady came to Dunmaine. I have 
dined and 6uj)pod with my lord more than once, but not while 
my lady was there. I dined at Dunmaine with Taylor after 
my lady came. I conversed with the upper servants, but 
never with the lower servants. I never was in Landy's house 
before my lady came. After Joan Landy left Dunmaine she 
went to her brother's and stayed about a week with him, and 
then she went to her father's. I saw her once when she was 
at her brother's. I do not think that would be so much as a 
year after the time my lady came to Dunmaine. Her brother 
told me that she had a child. 

Had she more than one child? — I never saw more than one 
with her. I cannot tell how long it was before I was made 
high constable that her brother told me she had a child. Joan 
Landy's child had light-coloured hair. She was brought to 
bed some time in the spring. I cannot tell what time of the 
year it was when my Lady Altham came to Dunmaine. I 
believe I had seen this woman with child before I saw Lady 
Altham. I never saw the child after it was three or four years 
old. I never heard that it died of smallpox. I heard that 
Joan Landy was afterwards married. I never made an affidavit 
concerning what I knew of Joan Landy's child. I believe it 
would be a month, or something more, after my lady went 
away that I first saw the child at Dunmaine. My lord lived 
at Dunmaine for half a year and more after the separation. I 
went to see the child when Joan Landy was brought to bed, 
because people said that it was my lord's child, and I wanted 
to make certain. I asked her whose child it was, and she 
said, "It is my lord's." "I believe then," says I, "my 
lord is very kind to you now, Juggy." I was often at Landy's 
house, because I had got leave to cut some turf almost next 
door. When I first saw the child at Lord Altham's house it 
had a little bit of a waistcoat upon it, and a little flannel about 
its neck. My lord wished to set the hounds after Juggy Landy 
because he did not want the child to know her to be the mother. 
I saw the child after the tailor brought him the clothes. It 
had a yellow silk coat. I do not know the name of the tailor ; 
I suppose he lived at Ross. I know Aaron Lambert very well. 
I never saw him at Dunmaine, but I heard he was there. 

Was the child kept private in the house or seen publicly 
there? — The child went publicly about the house, and every- 
body of the neighbourhood saw it. I was not acquainted with 
Lady Altham — I only 5;aw her. I was made high constable 
about the time of my lord and lady's separation. 

AnneGiffard jyf^s. Akne GiFFARD, examined — I was acquainted with the 
late Lord Altham and his lady. I lived about a mile or a mile 
186 



Evidence for Defendant. 

and a half from Dunmaine. I very often visited there, and Anne Giffard 
my lady visited me very often. Lady Altham came to Dun- 
maine, I believe, in 1713, a day or two before Christmas, and 
I visited her in the holidays, and she visited me some time 
after that. I believe she was at Dunmaine and Dublin for 
about three years, and I often met her during that time. I 
never observed nor heard of any sign of pregnancy in Lady 
Altham. She could not be with child without my knowing it 
or having heard of it, because I was often at Dunmaine, and 
in the room while she was dressing. I have lain at Dunmaine, 
but not often. I would be in my lady's company once a 
fortnight and sometimes twice a week. I do not believe a 
month would pass without my seeing her, except when she was 
absent. I never heard her say that she was with child, but 
I have heard her wish that she was with child. I was with 
child myself about thirty years ago, and not very well pleased 
at it, and my lady said, " Why will you be concerned with 
b^-ing with child? I wish I was in your condition." I never 
asked Lady Altham whether she was with child, because she 
had no signs of it. 

Joan Laffan lived at Dunmaine a little while before my lady 
■went away. I do not remember whether I was ever at Dun- 
maine after the separation. Upon my oath, I never saw any 
child there in my lifetime. It was reported that there was a 
child by Joan Landy. My husband was a justice of the peace, 
by name Ravenscroft Giffard. I cannot be sure whether I ever 
saw Joan Landy. If I did it would be only once. She 
was kitchenmaid at Dunmaine, and I heard that she was 
with child, but I did not trouble myself with her. I never 
saw Lady Altham after she went to Koss. I never had any 
discourse with Lord Altham about Landy's child any more 
than in a joke, when I told him that it was said that Joan 
Landy was with child by him. He only laughed and said, 
"Well, well, Mrs. Giffard." I do not remember of my ladj' 
ever being confined to her room. I knew that Mrs. Ilesther 
had lived in the family, but that was before my lady came. I 
knew Mr.s. Shiels, the midwife. I heard from the midwife that 
Mrs. Hesther was brought to bed of a child. 

I rememl>er going with my lady in her chariot to the assizes 
at Wexford, when the Pretender's men were tried — Mr. Walsh, 
of Monysced ; Mr. Masterton, his nephew; and a clergyman, 
Mr. Doyle. I believe that was in the springtime, and it must 
have been after the death of Queen Anne. I am sure it would 
be more than a year after my lady came to Dunmaine. I was 
in Court v.-ith my lady and some other ladies all the time that 
these men were tried. My lady and I lodged together at 
Wexford, at one Sweeney's, her room being over against mine. 
I never heard of my lady being with child at that time. I 

187 



The Annesley Case, 



Anne Giffnrd never saw her get out of bed or undress herself at Wexford, but 
I have seen her at Dunmaiiie. I was only once with my lady at 
the assizes. We were at Wexford for about a week, and then 
we came back to Dunmaine, where I lay one night. About 
a month or five weeks afterwards my lady went to Dublin. 
I remember that Mrs. Heath accompanied my lady to Wexford. 
There were other servants, but I do not recollect them now. 
I believe I often saw my lady between her return from Wex- 
ford and her going to Dublin. There was never any appearance 
of her being with child during that time. During all the time 
that Lady Altham lived in my neighbourhood I never heard 
of any public christening of a child of hers, or of any rejoicings 
on such an occasion. 

Cross-examined — I cannot tell how often Lady Altham and 
I were in the Court-house at Wexford. 

Were you there more than once? — We were there, and that 
is all I remember. A great many gentlemen went into the 
Court-house with us. Mr. Caesar Colclough sat beside Lady 
Altham and me in the Court-house, and Lord Altham was also 
there. I cannot recollect any other persons. I do not remember 
•whether Colonel Loftus was there, but very likely he was. I 
do not recollect who were the judges. I think I visited Lady 
Altham during the Christmas holidays of 1713 or thereabouts. 
I saw Mrs. Briscoe thei-e. I think her daughter came down 
afterwards. I cannot tell how long they stayed there, but I 
believe some of them stayed as long as three months — I believe 
the daughter stayed there the longest. I visited the family 
frequently during that time. I never heard that my lady 
was out of order, or kept her bed, or miscarried, during that 
time. I think it was after the death of Queen Anne that we 
were at the Wexford Assizes. Both my lady and I were in 
mourning. I had a brother that had died, but whether it was 
then or not I cannot tell. I cannot tell whether Mr. Colclough 
was in mourning or not, but he generally wore black. I do 
not know whether all the gentlemen of that country were in 
mourning. My lady and I went to the Wexford Assizes for our 
diversion only. I cannot recollect who handed my lady into the 
Court-house, as it is so many years ago. We sat on a seat 
going to the bench. I cannot tell how long we remained in the 
Court. I do not remember the verdicts being brought in. I 
cannot tell whether the persons whoso names I mentioned were 
tried that day or not, but both Walsh and Masterton were 
in the dock. I heard evidence to the effect that they had 
enlisted men for the Pretender. Lady Altham and I did not 
go out of curiosity to hear these trials, because we knew nothing 
of them before we wont there. I do not think we were in the 
Court when the jury returned their verdict. We stayed in the 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Court till about dinner-time. Lord Altham went with my lady Anne Giffard 
to Dublin about a month after the assizes. I do not know 
what they went to town for. 

I never saw James Landy's cabin to my knowledge, but I 
have heard that there was such a cabin. Mr. Pigot's family 
lived at Tyntern when Lord and Lady Altham lived at Dun- 
maine. I never saw them at Dunmaine more than once. I 
have seen Mrs. Lambert there, but not very often, and I have 
also seen the wife of Mr. Giffard, of Coldblow. Lord Altham's 
coach came to my house several times. It would come by the 
road over the bridge. 

Mrs. Catherine Lambert, examined — I am the wife of Aaron C. Lambert 
Lambert, who has the estate of Dunmaine, in the county of 
Wexford. I was married in January, 1713. Lord and Lady 
Altham came to Dunmaine before I was married, but I cannot 
exactly tell when. I was then residing in Ross, which is about 
4 or 5 miles away, and I often visited Dunmaine along with my 
husband. My lady stayed there for about three years. I never 
saw her to be with child while at Dunmaine, and I was visiting 
her constantly all the time I was at Ross. I cannot tell exactly 
how long I stayed at Ross, because I was backwards and for- 
wards at my father's at Waterford. I never heard from any 
person that my lady was with child or had a child. I never 
had any conversation with my lady about children. I do not 
think that she could have a child without my knowing of it. 
She never had the appearance of a woman with child while 
I knew her. There was never a child from the time of my 
lady's coming to Dunmaine till the separation that I ever 
heard of. I heard that there was a woman called Joan Laffan 
at Dunmaine, but I did not know her. 

Did you ever see a child that had the appearance of a gentle- 
man's child at Dunmaine? — I never saw a child there in my 
lord's time. No child was ever shown to me as the child of 
Lord and Lady Altham. I did not visit after the separation. 
I never saw a cliild in the house that passed for a child of 
that family. After the separation my lady lived at Captain 
Butler's at Ross. She was only there a short time, and then 
she went to other lodgings. I do not know Joan Landy, but 
I have heard talk of her. I have heard of a bastard child 
that Lord Altham had, but I know nothing of it. It was said 
that it was night-time when Lady Altham came to Ross after 
tho separation. I very often saw her at the windows of her 
lodgings at Ross, but I never visited her, because Lord Altham 
had laid an obligation u[)()n my husband that I slioiild not visit 
her. I was never out of this kingdom, and 1 cannot speak a 
word of French. 

189 



The Anneslcy Case. 



C. Lambert Cross-eiainined — I wont to Ross iibout the beginning of 
March, 1713, and I think I returned to Waterford in about a 
month or six wooks. I cannot say how long I stayed at Water- 
ford, but I might be there as long as three months. I was 
at Waterford at the death of Queen Anne. I did not look 
upon Waterford as my home. I reckoned my chief home to 
be in Ross, where my husband had lodgings. I was at 
Waterford at Christmas, 1714. I do not laiow where I was, 
whether at Ross or W^aterford, at Michaelmas, 1715. I never 
to my knowledge saw Mrs. Briscoe and her daughter at Dun- 
maine, but they might be there for all I can remember. I 
know that I often saw Mrs. Giffard there. I do not recollect 
any friend or companion remaining at Dunmaine for a month 
or two. I cannot say whether I would stay three months at a 
time at Waterford in the years 1714 and 1715. We left 
Ross to live at Waterford after the separation. While my 
husband went to quarters I used to go to see my father. I 
cannot recollect whether he would be absent for six weeks 
at a time in the year 1716. He was at Wexford with me 
when Queen Anne died, and there came an express from the 
colonel for him to be in Dublin against the time that the 
King was proclaimed, and he was there time enough. I have 
known Matthias Reilly for several years. I believe he is 
an agent for the present defendant. I have heard him talking 
about this matter, but not in any way relating to me. My 
husband and I separated about fifteen or sixteen years ago, 
and I have lodged for about six years at Mr. Matthias Reilly's 
house. I pay him £16 a year for my board and lodging. 
My husband put in an answer to a bill filed on my behalf 
against him. 

Is he to be believed on his oath? 

Question objected to and withdrawn. 



Seventh Day, Friday, i8th November, 1743. 

John Kerr JoHN Kerr, examined — Immediately after the Queen's death 
I was appointed clerk to the late Lord Chief Justice Forster. 
I have gone every circuit that he went during his life. He 
went the Leinster Circuit, which began in March, 1715, and 
I was with him at Wexford Assizes that circuit. I remember 
Mr. Masterton and Mr. Welsh being tried for enlisting men for 
the Pretender. I do not recollect any persons that were then 
in Court, except the judges and some of the men that were 
about the table. I cannot say that there were any women or 
ladies of fashion present, as I do not remember. I believe 
190 



Evidence for Defendant. 

we went into Wexford on a Saturday, and this trial was on John Kerr 
the Tuesday after, as near as I can remember, 16th April. 

Cross-examined — My Lord Chief Justice went on the Munster 
Circuit in the summer of 1715, and to the best of my remem- 
brance on the North-East Circuit in the spring of 1716. I do 
not remember any particular thing concerning a clergyman at 
the Wexford Assizes. 

Thomas Palliser, the younger, examined — I was acquainted t. Paiiiser 
with Lord and Lady Altham when they were at Dunmaine. 
When I first knew them I was very young, and at school at 
Ross. My father and mother lived at Great Island, about 
3 miles from Dunmaine, and I believe that Lord Altham and 
my father visited each other pretty frequently. My father 
was acquainted with my lord when he first came to Dunmaine, 
but I cannot be positive as to the year. So far as I know 
Lady Altham came to live at Dunmaine two years after her 
husband came. My lord took me from school and kept me at 
Dunmaine, and I hunted with him. I was frequently at Dun- 
maine after my lady came there. I remember that my lord 
frequently came to my father's house, but I won't take it upon 
me to say that my lady also came. I never heard of any report 
in the country that my lady had a child. I lived in the house 
while my lord and lady were there, but I cannot be positive 
as to the times because I was then very young. I think it 
would be about the year 1713. I spent more of my time then 
at Dunmaine than I did at Ross at school. While they were 
at Dunmaine I was either there or at Ross, and I was at home 
for some little time. I was very familiar at Dunmaine, and 
I never heard that my lady was with child, I do believe in 
my conscience that she never had a child, and I am convinced 
that if she had I must have heard of it. I remember four 
or five days before Lord and Lady Altham separated my lord 
was coming home from Birrstown, a mile and a half from 
Dunmaine, where we dined. There were present one Taylor, 
a receiver, and one Sutton. We had been drinking meath 
and brandy. I rode up to his lordship and asked how he did, 
and he said pretty well, and then after some little time he 
said that he was determined to part with my lady. I asked 
him tb<; reason and lie said, " I find my Lord Anglesea will 
never be in friendsliij» with me while I keep this woman ; 
and since I have no child by her I am determined to part with 
her and not disoblige my Lord Anglesea on her account." 
Upon that I said that he knew best what to do, but that I for 
my i)art would never turn off my wife to oblige any man. 
About a night or two before my lord told mo this he heard 
Taylor and Sutton making a great noise after he had gone to 
bed. He asked me what the noise was, and I told him they 

■91 



The Aiinesley Case. 

T. Paiiisei- were drinking bis wino; that thoy very often did so. He 
was angry, and swore that ho would turn off his butler. On 
hearing this they wished to be revenged upon me, and they 
contrived a plot. Pretty early one Sunday morning he called 
me to get up, and said that he was going to church. I told 
him that I had just been dreaming that he and I had been 
fighting and that he had put out my right eye, at which he 
smiled. I offered to go to church along with his lordship, 
but he said that I must stay at home to keep my lady com- 
pany. I replied that Taylor and Sutton were at home, but 
he said that they were not fit company and insisted upon me 
staying. And he also said that if I was to ride my horse that 
day it would not be so well able to carry me the next day, 
which was hunting day. After his lordship had gone I went 
into my lady's room, where I had often breakfasted before. 
Taylor and Sutton had told my lord that he must have some 
show for turning my lady off. While I was in my lady's 
chamber there was a whistle given, upon which my lord 
returned and came upstairs with his swoi'd drawn. My lady 
bade me go and see what the noise was. As I was going my 
lord came into the room and made a pass or two at me, and 
then one Anthony Dyer took the sword out of his hand. I 
threw myself into the dining-room, and then some fellows 
with sticks and clubs fell upon me, but after defending myself 
as well as I could I was overpowered. At last I fell, and was 
senseless when one of them with a knife, as they told me, 
came and cut off this ear. (The witness showed his head to 
the Court, and it appeared that the tip of the ear only was 
off.) I do now believe in my soul and am convinced that my 
lord did not intend to do it. This is all I have to say to that 
and a little more, by the virtue of the oath I have taken — I 
never knew whether that lady was man or woman, and this 
is only to satisfy the public. 

The Lord Chief Justice — This circumstance of the ear is 
very material because of Joan Laffan's testimony of seeing the 
ear and the child's pointing to the blood on the floor. 

Examination continued — By the virtue of my oath, there 
was no child there. I never sa-\v any child in the house. 

(The Court ordered Joan Laffan to be called, and requested 
that no person speak a word to her.) 

Examination continued — Anthony Dyer was my lord's own 
servant, and Charles, I think he was called, was the butler. 
I remember Mrs. Heath, my Lady Altham's maid, and I also 
remember one Joan Laffan. I never saw a child in her arms 
in my life, or in the arms of any man or woman servant in the 
house. By the virtue of the oath I have taken I never saw 
192 



Evidence tor Defendant. 

a child with Lady Altham. I think my lord brought the T. Pallisep 
Burgeon Sutton with him from England. He continued in the 
family all the time that I lived there, and he sometimes stayed 
at Ross. I cannot really say whether he bled well, but I know 
that he was a very gouty man. I do not know what station 
Joan Laffan was in, but I remember when we went to bed she 
used to wash the parlour every night. I have known her since 
that time. By virtue of my oath I think she is one of the 
vilest persons living, and I do not think she is a person to be 
credited upon her oath. The whole country knew that Lady 
Altham had not a child. I will venture to say that there is 
not a man that knows William Elms but will give him a good 
character. I never heard of him being accused of running 
away with public money and being prosecuted for it. I 
remember to have heard that he was high constable. 

Cross-examined — There was a very great intimacy between 
Lord Altham and me. I cannot tell whether there was a great 
friendship between Lord Altham and Lord Anglesea when my 
lord separated from my lady. I did not know Lord Anglesea 
at that time. The event which I mentioned happened on a 
Sunday. 

Do you believe my Lord Altham at that time had laid any 
scheme to abuse you? — I say, by virtue of my oath, he took 
me out of bed that morning for that very reason, because he ' 

knew I should have no other place but to sit with my lady in 
her chamber, as I very often did, and that was the place 
intended. I believe my lord miglit have separated from his 
lady without doing me an injury, but I think he had a mind 
to have some sort of colour for doing so. 

[Joan Laffan having come into the Court, a complaint was 
made by the defendant's counsel that Mr. Annesley's servant 
was found speaking to her, whereupon the said servant was 
ordered to be sworn and called upon to declare what he had 
said to her. Being accordingly sworn, he only said that he 
told her that she was sent for by the Court, and that young 
Mr. Palliser was then being examined, and she answered, " I 
don't care; for they will get nothing by me." She did not tell 
him what she meant.] 

Joan Lakfan, examined — Mr. Palliser was often in the house, j^^^j^ Laffan 
and behaved very ill in the hou.se, and was very abusive to 
the servants. He was so ill-beloved that he was obliged to take 
a saucepan of water and wash his own stockings, for none of 
them would do it for him. He u.sed to put horse jallap into 
their beer, and he used to tell my lady a great many lies and 
stories about the servants. To be revenged, one Thursday 
morning the servants took my lord into a little room, and 

o 193 



The Annesley Case. 

they said thoy would toll him Bomething very material, and 
made him swear not to repeat what they were going to tell 
him. On the Saturday night following I was putting my lady 
to bed when my lord asked me to order a fire in his dressing- 
room and to put a shirt to air, and ho told my lady he would 
not dine at home to-morrow. Mr. Palliser breakfasted with 
my lord, and they had a bottle of mulled wine. A little while 
after Mr. Palliser went into my lady's room, and then the 
servants made a signal and went with my lord into my lady's 
room with drawn swords. I cannot tell whether this was the 
first time that Mr. Palliser was in my lady's room. The 
servants brought Mr. Palliser out, and then the groom said 
to me that Mr. Palliser was caught in bed with my lady, and 
that my lord was going to kill him, but they desired him only 
to' cut his nose or his ear. I told Mrs. Heath what had 
happened. 

Did you see the ear after it was cut oSI — Yes, I saw it in 
their hands. It was not very large, only the soft part, the 
lowest part (pointing to the tip of her own ear). I cannot 
remember whether there was any of the gristly part cut o£E. 
The child was about the house with me, and he pointed to the 
blood with his finger. Mr. Palliser was dressed with his hat 
and wig, but he was found in the room with my lord's satin 
nightcap on, and had it on when he was brought out of the 
room. When my lady breakfasted in her room it was part of 
my business to attend to her. 

Did you use to have the child with you then generally? — 
Yes, I did not attend her till the child came home. I never 
saw my lord breakfast with my lady in my life. 

My lady admitted none of the male servants to breakfast 
with her? — No, she never did. I lived with Colonel Deans 
when Queen Anne died, and I went to my lord's service in the 
year 1715. The child was then either three or four months old. 
Mr. Palliser was not there very frequently. I have seen Mr. 
Palliser playing often with the child, but I do not know whether 
he would take him up in his arms. Mr. Palliser was never in 
the house after my lady left. 

T. Palliser Thomas Palliser, cross-examination continued — By virtue of 
my oath, I never saw a child wuth that woman in my life. 

The Lord Cidef Baron said that Joan Laffan had sworn 
nothing contrary to her former testimony, that she had only 
explained what she meant by the ear being cut, but they 
declared their surprise at the contradiction of the evidence on 
both sides. 

Cross-examination continued — Lord Altham made two passes 
at me, and if I had not put them by he might have run me 
194 



Evidence for Defendant. 

through the body, but I cannot tell. I do believe if he had T. PalHser 
found me in an evil action he would have done it. I cannot 
say whether he designed to run me through the body when he 
made a pass at me. I never saw Joan Laflfan upstairs in my 
life. It was always Mrs. Heath who used to attend to my 
lady. Joan Lafifan never attended her at any time, because 
she was a very proud woman, and would not have inferior 
servants about her. I cannot tell how often I breakfasted with 
my lady. I believe my lady might have directed me twenty 
times to breakfast with her. I do not know but what I might 
have breakfasted in my lady's bedchamber, to my lord's know- 
ledge, within a week before the separation. I remember Lord 
Altham saying on one occasion after Lord Anglesea had 
recovered from an attack of the gout that he would give some- 
thing to anybody that would give him the first notice of Lord 
Anglesea's death. I think the conversation which I refer to 
as having taken place when coming from Birrstown took place 
four or five days before the separation. 

Can you recollect about what business it was that my lord 
and you were at Birrstown 1 — We went there for a drinking bout. 
They were drinking meath and brandy. Taylor and Sutton 
were riding a little before us, but they might have heard the 
conversation if they had paid attention. I do not know that I 
had any conversation with m}- lord before he made the declara- 
tion that I have already narrated. To the best of my recol- 
lection, my lord, Sutton, Taylor, and I were all together at 
breakfast on the morning that this misfortune happened, but 
I do not think that I took any breakfast along with them. I 
believe there was mulled wine at breakfast. I think I had a 
white cap on that morning, the cap I lay in that night. I do 
not think I had a silk cap on. I do not think I had my wig 
on at breakfast. I do not remember ever wearing a cap of 
my lord's. I do not remember who took care of my body 
linen, but it might have been Juggy Landy. She always washed 
the room and made the bed. I do not think I used to take 
my nightcaps with me to my lord's house. 

Did you use to lie in a napkin? — Indeed, I cannot say. I 
believe I often lay without any at that time. I cannot recollect 
having seen my lord in a nightgown, nor can I ever say that 
I saw a nightgown of his in his bedchamber. I have seen him 
in a nightcap, but I never remarked what like it was. I do 
not know the name of the laundrymaid, but I fancy Joan 
Lallan assisted in the laundry. I don't recollect how late we 
Rat up on the Saturday night. My lady was generally in bed 
when I breakfasted with her. 

Was she in bed on account of any indisposition, or was it a 
French fashion she had of receiving her guests in bed? — -I do 

>9S 



The Annesley Case. 



T. Palllsop not know what you may mean by your French fashion, but, 
generally speaking, she lay in bed long. She always had a 
gown or a wrapper on. I believe her maid would go back- 
wards and forwards when I was breakfasting in her room. I 
am positive that I never saw a child in the house. I cannot say 
that I knew Mrs. Briscoe and her daughter, but I remember 
to have heard of one Mrs. Briscoe. After the usage I had met 
with from my Lord Altham I sent him a challenge next morn- 
ing, and I posted him on the Cross of Koss for not meeting 
me. My father afterwards went and bade him come and meet 
me. 

Did not my lord fly out of tliat country on that occasion 
and go to live at Mr. Annesley's, at Ballysax, to shun youl — 
I know he went out of the country, but I do not know for 
what reason. I carmot say when he quitted the country. I 
do not know whether he left Dunmaine before 1717 or after. 
On the morning of the separation I think Anthony Dyer took 
the sword out of Lord Altham's hand. I cannot tell whether 
my lord saw the servants strike me. I was in such confusion 
that I did not know what I was knocked down with. I am 
convinced that no gentleman in the country ever heard that 
Lady Altham had a child. I cannot tell whether Mr. Pigot's 
family lived at Tyntern while Lord and Lady Altham lived at 
Dunmaine. I never saw one of that family at Dunmaine. I 
think I once saw Mr. Pigot, who married Mrs. Leigh. They 
might have lived in the neighbourhood without my knowing. 
On the Sunday that the separation took place my lord said 
that he was going to church at Tottenham Green, so far as I 
remember, but he said that I was not to go with him. Both 
Taylor and Sutton used to dine with my lady. Mr. Taylor 
was a kind of receiver, and unless there was a full company 
he dined at the table, but when there was a full company he 
sat at a side table. I do not know what Sutton was, but I 
suppose he attended the house on business. I did not apply 
for satisfaction in a Court of law, because my father did not 
think proper to do it, and I had no money at that time. 

Were you not found alone with my lady in her bedchamber t 
I do not know whether Mrs. Heath was there or not — I do 
not know that any one was in the bedchamber then. 

Did my lord ever find you alone with her and she in naked 
bed but this one time? — I do not know whether he did or not, 
but by virtue of my oath I believe so. I swear positively 
that I had no criminal conversation with this lady. 

Thomas Rolph Thomas Rolph, examined — I knew Lord and Lady Altham 

in England two or three j'ears before my lord came to Ireland. 

I came to my lord's house at the latter end of the year 1711, 

and I remained with him as butler to the end of the year 1715. 

196 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Lady Altham came to DunmaiDe in the year 1713, a little Thomas Roiph 
before Christmas. I never heard of her being with child 
during that time. I waited on my lord twice a day, dinner 
and supper, and I never saw any sign of her being with child, 
nor did I ever hear it reported. I heard both my lord and 
lady often wish that they had a child. Among the servants 
who were in the house during my time I remember John 
Weedon, the coachman ; I believe he is now dead. I also 
remember Bourke, the postilion ; Michael Foster, the cook ; 
Arthur, a gardener; and Martin, the smith. As for the women 
servants, there was one Juggy Landy that was a kitchen wench 
under Foster. And then there was little Black Nell, that 
was a weeding wench under Arthur ; and Mary Hayes, the 
dairymaid. I also remember Mary Waters, a chambermaid; 
and Betty Doyle, a laundrymaid ; and then there was a dog- 
boy, whom we called Smutty. Mrs. Heath was my lady's 
own woman, and Mary Waters used to cany up the tea kettla 
to her bedchamber for her breakfast. After Mary Waters 
went away there came one Nellie Thomas in her place. I do 
not know whether I would know Black Nellie again, but I 
am sure I should remember Betty Doyle. Then there was 
Anthony Dyer, my lord's gentleman. I cannot tell if I would 
know Smutty again. I never knew Juggy Laffan, nor did I 
ever see her to my knowledge. I left the service between 
Michaelmas and Christmas, 1715. I did not get a discharge 
when I left. It seems that Joan Landy was with child when 
I left, because two or three months afterwards she was turned 
out for being with child. She was brought to bed in her 
father's cottage, which was about a quarter of a mile from 
Dunmaine. Two or three days after Joan Landy was brought 
to bed I went on purpose to see the child, and I carried it to 
the door to see if I could know whose it was. I asked her 
who she laid this child to and she said, " To my lord." 
" Why," says I, " you are in the right of it, for if you had 
lain it to anybody else I do not know how it would have been 
maintained." I asked her tlic question because I knew some 
other people that had lain with her as well as my lord. I saw 
the child fifty times and more after that. It lived in the hut 
where it was born. It was a little hut, as is commonly built 
in Ireland, with just one room. Joan hiy with her father ami 
mother on some straw on the ground. There was a fireplace 
on the left hand as you go into the house, but I believe there 
was no chimney. There was no partition, there was only a 
hurdle stuffed with straw at Joan's head to keep the air of 
the door from her. The child stayed in that cottage as long 
as I lived at Dunmaine. I never saw any other child in that 
cottage. The hurdle I have referred to would perhaps be 

•97 



The Annesley Case. 



Thomas Rolph thus broad (e.\t<?nding his aims), and perhaps 4 or 5 feet high. 
There was no window in the cabin, neither were there any 
chairs or a table. All the time I was at Dunmaine there was 
no alteration made in that cabin. If there had been any 
alteration I must have seen it, as I was there almost every 
day. It was never whitewashed. The child was dressed in 
a sort of woollen stuff tiling all the time I knew it. Joan 
Landy used to come about the stables at Dunmaine, and I 
used to give her what broken victuals there were to help to 
support her child. The child was never suffeied to come 
to the house of Dunmaine. My lady forbade that Joan Landy 
should come upon the land or near the house at all. 

What was the reason she was not suffered to come to the 
house? — Why, it was first given out it was my lord's child, 
and that is a good reason, I think. I never knew my Lady 
Altham to go to Landy's cottage. She was as proud a woman 
as any in Ireland, and she would not have suffered any child 
of hers to be nuised in that w-ay, I am certain. There was a 
tolerably good coach road between the cottage and Dunmaine 
House, but it was made long before the cottage was built. 
I saw the cottage being built a year before the child was born, 
and the road was made a year before that to go to Mr. 
Palliser's, Mr. Giffard's, the church, and the mill. Mr. 
Giffard visited my lord before and after my lady came. 

Mr. Mackercher came to my house and asked whether I 
ever lived wuth Lord Altham, and I told him I did. He asked 
whether my lady had ever had a child, and I told him no. He 
asked me the names of the servants as near as I could remem- 
ber, and I told him the names. He then asked me if I would 
accept of a lieutenancy and I said no, that I was better as I 
was. There were two gentlemen along with Mr. MacKercher, 
one of them being called Sir Thomas, and the other looked 
like an officer. Mr. Mackercher came to me again, about a 
fortnight or three weeks after, and asked me whether I had 
said that he had offered me a lieutenancy. I said that I 
knew it was not in his power to give me one, and I desired 
him to go off my ground, because I heard that there was some 
tampering going on in order to give evidence, and I was not 
going to be tampered with. I had told many a one about 
the first conversation I had had with Mr. Mackercher. 

I remember my lord, my lady, Mrs. Giffard, Mrs. Heath, 
and I going to the Wexford Assizes when some of the Pre- 
tender's men were tried. Mrs. Giffard went in the chariot 
with my lady. My lord rode, and Mrs. Heath and I went on 
horseback. I left my lord's service because I had a dispute 
with Aithur, the gardener, and beat him, upon which ho went 
to Dublin to complain to my lord, and my lord sent a letter 
to Dunmaine threatening to send me to gaol at Wexford. My 
198 



Evidence for Defendant. 

lord and lady went to Dublin some time in May, 1715, and Thomas Rolph 

I left the service between Michaelmas and Christmas of that 

year. I recollect the Queen's death. My Lord and Lady 

Altham were in Dublin then. The time we went to Wexford 

Assizes was in the spring after the Queen's death, and I beat 

the gardener about Michaelmas of 1715. I cannot tell when 

my lord and lady returned from Dublin, because I went away 

to England before they came back. Joan Landy's child was 

christened by the name of James by one Michael Downes at 

Nash, a little village near Dunmaine. I was not at the 

christening and I cannot say when it took place, but I heard 

about it. I never heard him called by any other name than 

James. 

Cross-examined — I joined the army immediately after I went 
to England, before Christmas of 1715. I entered Lord Altham's 
service at the latter end of 1711 or the beginning of 1712, and 
I continued in his service for about three years. I was there 
for a year and a half after my lady came to Dunmaine. I 
never heard Joan Landy's child reputed to be mine, but I 
won't tell what was my own imagination. I don't believe that 
the child was my Lord Altham's. I believe it to be the child 
of the present Earl of Anglesea. Joan Landy never sent me 
any message to Lord Altham about the child. I believe that 
Lord Altham knew that Joan fathered the child on him. I 
cannot tell why it was that the child was so ill taken care 
of. The coach road passing Landy's cottage was the nearest 
and best road to go to Mrs. Giffard's by. She came almost 
constantly past that house when she came in a coach. That 
road was also the best coach road from Dunmaine to Mr. 
Palliser's house. I remember that Mrs. Heath came with my 
lady to Dunmaine. I am sure that Mrs. Briscoe did not come 
down with her. I have seen Mrs. Briscoe and her daughter 
in the house, and they might be there a fortnight or three 
weeks or a month. I cannot tell whether Mrs. Briscoe came 
within a year after or not. 

There were six horses in the chariot when we went to Wex- 
ford. I rode a brown bay horse. I cannot tell what was the 
colour of Mrs. Heath's horse. I was not in the Court-house 
during the time of the trial. I cannot tell the day of the week 
or the month that we Avent to Wexford. We stayed here for 
two or three days. I lodged at the post office, but I cannot 
tell in what house my lord and lady lodged, as I did not 
attend them there. I do not remember what clothes my lord 
and lady wore. I wore dark grey clothes. I believe the family 
might be in mourning at that time. I never wore a livery. 
I did not get any wages when I left my lord's service. I went 
to Wnxford because my lord's gentleman was sick at Dunmaine. 

199 



The Annesley Case. 



Thomas Rolph I did not attend my lord at Wexford. My lady was ill for about 
a week or a fortnight altogether while I was in the service, 
but she never kept her room for more than a day or two. 1 
went to Wexford because I was my lord's clerk, and there was 
some examinations taken before him, and I carried them for 
him. Before Juggy Landy's father went to his cottage ho 
lived at a little house near the dog kennel. He used to steal 
the apples and the poultry, and was turned away. I believe 
he would be in his cottage about a year and a half before his 
daughter was brought to bed. Before I went into Lord Altham's 
service I was a housekeeper in Chelsea, and my lord lived 
next door to me. My wife continued to live in the house, and 
I came over here to look for some money that my lord owed 
me. I never got a farthing of wages. 

How much a year had you? — Why, nothing a year, for I 
got nothing from him. My lord was by no means rich; he 
had little to live on. 

What did you hire with him for? — I never hired; I acted as 
his butler. I made no agreement. He told me that he would 
pay me the money he owed me in England, and if I would 
take on to be his butler he would pay me for that too. I never 
demanded any wages after leaving my lord. I believe he 
would be owing me about £20. I shall be sixty years old in 
July of next year. Shortly after the visit to Wexford my lord 
went to Dublin and took with him Anthony Dyer, Mrs. Heath, 
the coachman, and the postilion. I had the care of the hous© 
while he was at Dublin, and I never went to Dublin with him. 
I don't think Miss Briscoe went along with my lord and lady 
to Dublin in the year 1715. There was no person called Charles 
Meagher in the service while I was there. The Pretender's men 
were tried at Wexford in the year 1715, after the Queen died. 

Did you ever tell anybody since this trial or within these 
ten or fifteen days that at the spring assizes after the Queen's 
death there were Pretender's men tried at Wexford? — To be 
sure, I have spoken of it several times. I do not know but 
I have told it to five hundred people. I spoke about it to 
my comrades in the army. I cannot remember whether I told 
it to the present Earl of Anglesea or to Mr. Jans or Mr. 
Burroughs. Since I came to Ireland I have heard that the 
Pretender's men were tried. 

Can you tell any person that you spoke to about the spring 
assizes at Wexford at any time before you came here to-day ? — 
No, I informed nobody of it, nor did I tell it to any one soul 
that I know of. I saw Mrs. Giffard here yesterday, but I had 
no conversation with her. I was told that she was examined 
in this cause yesterday, but I heard no particulars of 
her examination. I have never served the present Lord 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Anglesea in any station. I cannot tell whether I saw Joan Thomas Eolph 
Landy's child walk about with a blanket about its shoulders 
before Lord and Lady Altham went to the Wexford Assizes. 

Owen Cavanagh, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady o. Cavanaeh 
Althana very well. The first place I ever saw Lady Altham 
was in Dublin, and then I saw her several times at Dunmaine. 
I was in Lord Altham's service a long time before my lady 
came over, and I was living at Dunmaine when my lady first 
came; I cannot tell for how long, but it was till I went with 
Captain Annesley to Dublin and took a fever. After I was 
better I went back to my lord. While my lord and lady were 
in Dublin I had a quarrel with the cook about a hogshead of 
water. I took a stick and broke the cook's head, and the cook 
went to Dublin and complained, upon which my lord sent down 
a letter to commit me to Wexford gaol. I then left the service. 
To the best of my remembrance I would leave the service about 
three or four months before my lord and lady separated. I 
was living with Lord and Lady Altham before we were in 
mourning for the Queen, but I do not recollect where I was at 
the time of Queen Anne's death. I was with my Lord Altham 
when my lady came to Dublin, and I returned with my lord to 
Dunmaine. I do not remember whether my lady came to 
Dunmaine along with my lord, but if she did not she came 
a short time after. I do not remember that my lord and lady 
went to Dublin again. I never attended them to Dublin to 
my knowledge. 

By virtue of my oath, I never heard or knew that my lady 
was ever with child. I remember my lord had a great big 
fat steward, called Taylor, while I was there. The cook's name 
was Michael. I was groom, and Taylor's business was feeding 
the ducks, and drinking and singing with my lord. We called 
him steward, but I do not know what he was. Thomas Kolph 
was butler. My lord had a page called Anthony Dyer, and 
I think when my lady came to Dunmaine he bestowed him 
upon her. My lady's maid was an English woman called Mrs. 
Heath. 1 remember a woman there called Joan Landy, but I 
do not know whether she was a servant or not. She was a 
kitchenmaid and scoured, but whether she had wages or not 
I cannot tell. Everybody supposed her to be with child, and 
I know we made game of her. When my lady came down 
somebody told my lady that Landy was got with child by my 
Lord Altham, and for that reason she was turned out of the 
house. I saw her afterwards in her father's cottage, and I 
saw a child with her. That child was never brouglit to Dun- 
maine House to my knowledge, and my lady was anytliing but 
fond of it. I never saw my lord fond of it. I was inside 



The Annesley Case. 



0. CavanaRh Landy's house ; it was but a very despicable place. To the 
best of my memory there was just one room, and there was 
no furniture except a pot and two or three trenchers and a 
couple of straw beds on the floor. The cottage was built 
after I came to live at Dunmaiiie. I do not remember it being 
whitewashed. There was no window except a window for the 
smoke to go out of. By virtue of my oath, I never heard of 
Lady Altham's being with child. I frequently heard my lord 
wish that my lady had a child to inherit the estate to deprive 
this present man of it, for there was nothing but constant 
quarrels between them. 

I cannot tell what became of Joan Landy's child afterwards. 
I saw a child at Inchicore after I was married, but whether that 
was it or not I cannot tell. I spoke to my lord concerning that 
child, and I said, " I am persuaded he is your lordship's son 
by that woman. Why don't you take some care of him?" 
To the best of my remembrance, my lord told me that he was 
such an idler that he could never get any good of him. Kinnea 
is within a mile from where I now live. I never saw my lord 
there or at Carrickduff. I do not remember when the Pre- 
tender's men w-ere tried at Wexford. 

Cross-examined — I believe I was married in the year 1719, 
because I showed my wife the certificate the other day and 
said, " See, my dear, what an old married couple we are." 
I cannot say whether I lived at Dunmaine in the year 1715, 
because I can tell nothing of any year. 

Was not this child of Juggy Landy's a black, swarthy child? 
— You may as well ask me what colour the King of France's 
child was. At the time my lord took to his lady there was a 
good deal of joy among the servants of Captain Briscoe's. 

Anthony Dyer Anthont Dyer, examined — I waited on the late Lord Altham 
as his gentleman for five or six years. He was living at Dun- 
maine when I first entered his service. I was but a lad at the 
time. Lady Altham came to Dunmaine shortly after I came, 
and I remained there for three years after my lady left. I was 
at Dunmaine at the time of the separation. After they first 
came to Dunmaine they returned to Dublin. I was constantly 
with my lord except when he sent me to Dublin about business. 
I would never be absent more than a fortnight at any time. 
By virtue of my oath, I never knew that my lady had a child, 
good, bad, or indifferent, till this late uproar came up. I 
never heard that she was supposed to have been with child. 
I lemember some of the servants in the house — John Weedon, 
coachman; Mrs. Heath, my lady's woman; Juggy Landy, the 
kitchenmaid; and Michael, the cook. To the best of my know- 
ledge Juggy Landy was with child at the time of my lady's 



Evidence for Defendant. 

coming to Dunmaine, and she continued there for about two Anthony Dyer 

months till it came to my lady's ears, and then she was turned 

away. As far as I know, she then went to live with her father 

and mother. I saw her after she was brought to bed in her 

father's house, about a quarter of a mile from Dunmaine 

House. I saw the child after it was born; he was named 

James. I cannot tell when Landy's cottage was built. To 

the best of my knowledge Landy lived in that cottage during 

part of the time that Joan was in my lord's service. The 

cottage was a very poor one, of one room, and with a bush 

that they had to draw in and out for the door. There was 

a place made up like a basket at one end, where Joan lay. 

The child was very poorly dressed. 

Was it such as you would expect from that woman's child? — 
Ay, for she deserved no better. She told me that it was my 
lord's child. I believe I would see the child five or six different 
times. She used to bring it by stealth, and leave it with the 
grooms in the stable till she got some victuals and small beer 
to subsist her. I never saw the child in Dunmaine House 
while my lady resided there. I never saw my lady handle 
any child in the house. The child might be in the house 
without my knowing about it. Joan Landy came about the 
house by stealth, because she was afraid on account of fathering 
the child upon my lord. I never saw any other child with 
Joan Landy but that child that I saw a fortnight after it was 
born. I cannot tell what became of the child. Juggy Laffan 
was a servant at Dunmaine for about three or four months 
while my lady was there. She was a chambermaid, and she 
never had the care of any child during that time to my know- 
ledge. I do not think that any servant could have the charge 
or care of a child in that house without my knowledge. 
To the best of my knowledge, when my lord met my 
lady at Captain Briscoe's, on our going down to Dunmaine, 
servants and some of the tenants made a bonfire to welcome 
them. I do not remember any christening in Dunmaine House, 
private or public, nor do I remember any bonfire or rejoicings 
except on the occasion I have mentioned. I never knew 
Landy's cottage to be repaired during ray time. I never saw a 
glass window in the cottage. I very frequently saw my lord's 
chaplain, Mr. Lloyd, at Dunmaine, but I never saw him christen 
any child there. I never heard him say anything about a child 
being christened in Dunmaine Ilou.se. I knew Kolph, the 
butler. I always went to Dublin witli my lord and lady, and 
Rolph was left in the house at Dunmaine. I do not think Uolph 
was in the family when I went back to Dunmaine with my lord 
and lady aguin. He was succeeded as butler by one called 
Charles, who was hired in town. George Sutton was the 
surgeon that attended the family. I remember young Mr. 



The Anneslcy Case, 



Anthony Dyer Palliser ; he frequently visited Dunmaine. I never knew him 
to misbehave to the servants. I never took any oath with 
any of the servants against Mr. Palliser. I never knew him 
to wash his own stockings. The only thing I remember against 
Mr. Palliser is that he once told my lord about the servants 
drinking wine. 

How did the servants behave to him? — Very well, all the 
better servants did. I have seen my lady breakfast in her 
room, but I never saw her in her bed. I cannot say whether 
Joan Laffan used to bring the tea kettle up to her. 

Cross-examined — I was at one time a gaoler at Cork. I 
never saw the child in Dunmaine House to my knowledge. I 
continued with my lord for about three-quarters of a year 
after the separation, and, by virtue of my oath, I never saw 
any child in the house with my Lady Altham. I am about 
forty-five years old. I cannot tell what year it was I left 
Lord Altham. Joan Laflfan was in the house at the time of 
the separation, but 1 cannot say whether she continued to be 
there for any time afterwards. I never went into Landy's 
house after the separation, although I sometimes passed it. 
I cannot tell what became of Joan Landy's child after the 
separation. To the best of my knowledge my lady went twice 
to Dublin after she first came to Dunmaine, but I cannot say 
how long she stayed there. When my lord and lady came to 
Dublin they would sometimes stay more than a month and 
sometimes less — I cannot tell how long. I cannot remember 
how long it was after my lady came to Dunmaine that she and 
my lord first went to Dublin. I was sick, and kept my bed 
when my lord and lady went to the Wexford Assizes. I never 
told Mr. Jans, the surgeon, to my knowledge, that I was sick 
at Dunmaine, nor did I mention it to Rolph, with whom I had 
a conversation a few days ago. To the best of my knowledge 
my lord and lady came to Wexford from Dunmaine, but I 
cannot remember where they spent the summer there, as it is 
so long ago. I had not seen Rolph for many years till I saw 
him the other day in Dublin. 

Had you any discourse with him about anything that passed 
at Dunmaine while you lived together? — We called over all 
our jokes and merriments that we had. We had no discourse 
about the son, whether he was Lord Altham's son or not, nor 
had we any conversation about the trial. I never told any one 
about anything that I recollected about the matter in dispute. 
I do not recollect a man called Reynold at Dunmaine. 

Did you mention to Rolph in your conversation with him 
that you believed my lady had no child while she was at 
Dunmaine? — Yes, I did, and he told me so too, for he knew 
it as well as L 
204 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Had you any conversation with Rolph about this trial to put Anthony Dyer 
one another in mind? — I never had. 

Did you not both talk of the absurdity and wickedness of 
pretending to set up a child in this family? — I never did, to 
my knowledge. 

Did you not mention to him any circumstances by which 
you were sure there was no child in the family? — I did not, 
nor did he, to my knowledge. I never said to Rolph that I 
knew my lady to be with child at the time she went to Wexford 
Assizes, because I never knew her to be with child. Rolph left 
my lord's service before I did. I do not remember Mr. and 
Mrs. Pigot, but I remember Mr. Palliser and his family, and 
Mr. and Mrs. Giffard. To the best of my knowledge Mrs. 
Briscoe and her daughter paid a visit to Dunmaine. I do not 
remember of a man that went by the name of Harry, the cook. 
I cannot remember seeing Mrs. Giflfard come in a carriage or 
coach to Dunmaine. I cannot tell whether Landy's cottage 
is still standing. I saw Landy's child about a month after his 
birth, and I believe the last time I would see him would be 
about six months after that. I might see the child before 
the separation, when Juggy Landy brought him into the stablea 
to get some victuals. 

Mrs. Mart Heath, examined — In October, 1713, I came Mary Heath 

over to Ireland with Lady Althara as her woman, and I lived 
with her to the day of her death, in October, 1729. I was 
constantly with her, except for one week. We came down to 
Dunmaine the Christmas Eve after we came over to Ireland, 
and my lord and lady lived there together for about three 
years and two months, to the best of my remembrance. They 
parted in February. 

In what year?—! call it 1716-17. 

Had my lady a child ;it Dunmaine? — A child. She never had, 
nor was she ever with child. I never had reason to think she 
was with child all the time I lived with her. I always dressed 
and undressed my lady, except the week I was absent. While 
sho was at Dunmaine I always put her to bed and attended at 
her rising in the morning, for she was such a woman that she 
would not permit anybody else to do it. She could not possibly 
have been with child without my knowing it. After the separa- 
tion I went with my lady to Captain Butler's in Ross in a four- 
wheeled chaise and pair of horses. It was dark at night when 
we arrived at Ross; my lady made it as late as slie could, for 
she did not wish to be seen coming there. We arrived on a 
Sunday, I think it was .''rd February, and we lived there for 
more than four years. I do not know whether my lady ever 
saw my lord during that time. 

205 



The Anncsley Case. 



■ary Heath When we came to Dunmaino, as far as I remember, the 
servants wore l\olph, the butlor ; Anthony Dyer, my lord's 
gentleman; Setwright, the housekeeper; Michael, the cook; 
and Juggy Landy, who was a kind of scullion under the cook. 
Soon after we arrived at Dunmaino, as I came down to speak 
to the housekeeper, I saw this woman with child, and I said 
to the housekeeper, " You have got a maid big with child here," 
and she said, " Yes, an officer was here some time ago, and 
bis servant got her with child." Next day it was buzzed about 
that it was my lord that had got the child, and some 
said my lord's brother, and some said the dog-boy and several 
of the servants had to do with her. She stayed two or three 
months, till the housemaid was afraid to keep her any longer, 
nd then she went to her father's, but I never saw her there. 
After the child was born I asked the coachman's wife to bring 
it up to the gate, in order that I might see it. Juggy Landy 
herself bi-ought the child. It would then be about six weeks or 
two months old. It had on a neckcloth which I had given it, 
and it was in a clean blanket, and I gave her several things. 
I wanted to see the child, to know who it was like. I did not 
bring it to the house, for my lady would not luive liked it to 
be brought there. There never was any child christened or 
living at Dunmaine House while I was there. My lady during 
that time never spoke to me about being with child or having 
had a child, but she often wished she had a child on account 
of a quarrel she had with Mr. Annesley. She came up crying 
one day after dinner, and I asked her what was the matter, 
and she said that that brute below — meaning the defendant — 
had said that he wished she might never have a child, and my 
lady said she wished she might have a child to inherit, and 
she did not care if she was to die the next hour. After that 
quarrel Mr. Annesley left the house and went to Dublin. 

I was at the Wexford Assizes with my Lord and Lady Altham 
to hear the trials of the Pretender's men. My lady told me 
that there was one Walsh tried, and she spoke of how hand- 
somely he pleaded his own cause. She also mentioned one 
Masterton. I do not remember the month we were at the 
assizes, but it was in the spring-time, shortly before we went to 
Dublin, and I remember we were in Dublin in May. On going 
to Wexford Mrs. Giffard and my lady went in the chariot, my 
lord went on horseback, and Kolph and I and Mrs. Giffard's 
sister were also on horseback. There were several other servants 
there, but I do not remember them except Weedon, the 
coachman, and Bourke, the postilion. 

Give an account of the occasion of the unfortunate separa- 
tion? — On a Saturday night my lord said he would go out 
somewhere to dine the next day, and my lady begged of him 
206 



Evidence for Defendant. 

not to go, for she hated him to be out on a Sunday. On the Mary Heath 

Sunday morning he did go from the house. I heard a noise, 

and I was going downstairs to see what was the matter when 

I met my lord coming up with his sword in his hand, and he 

said, " Heath, I have found Tom Palliser in bed with my 

wife." I said that it was impossible, and that he was 

set upon by a set of villains. Upon that my lord said that 

she should go out of the house, and he sent for one Mr. 

Wellman, from Ross, who advised him to turn my lady out. 

She begged that he would let her have one room in the 

house, and he need not come near till she wrote to my Lord 

Duke. He would not hear her, but he hauled her out of bed, 

and I advised her to come out. We packed up some things 

and went away in the four-wheeled chaise, and arrived at Ross 

at night-time. 

Was there any child brought to take leave of my lady? — Oh, 
no, no child indeed. During our residence at Ross there was 
no child that my lady received as her child. I believe we 
stayed two months or more at Captain Butler's, and then we 
went to one Mr. Wright's, and then to Mr. Croft's, where we 
stayed till we came to Dublin. 

During this time was there any child brought to my lady 
as her child? — No, there never was. She had no child. I 
can say no more if they rack me to death. I knew Joan Laffan. 
She was what we call a housemaid, and it was her business to 
•wash the rooms and make the beds. She came to live at Dun- 
maine three or four months before my lord and lady parted. 
She helped the laundrymaid to wash. 

Did she dry-nurse any child before the separation? — No, we 
had no child for her to dry-nurse. I never saw any child in 
the hands or care of Joan Laffan while she was at Dunmaine. 
I do not know one Edward Lutwich, a shoemaker, at Ross. 
I do not know who made my lady's shoes. I am quite sure 
she never ordered a pair of shoes for a little boy. She never 
had a pair of white damask shoes while I lived with her. 

When we came to Dublin we lodged at one Cavanagli's, in 
Stable Ijane, and from there we went to Mr. King's in Charles 
Street. From there we went to Mrs. MacMullcn's in Mount- 
rath Street. We went to England in September, 1724, where 
•we stayed till her ladyship's death. Before we went to lodge 
at Mr. King's I went to look for lodgings in a house somewhere 
upon the quay. I saw the owner of the house, a woman, and 
gave her a pistole in earnest, but afterwards, on my telling 
tfio woman that the df>ctor did not wish my lady to live upon 
the (juay, she gave me back the pistole. T never saw that 
woman afterwards. My lady never saw her or spoke to her, 
to my knowledge. I never heard or knew anything of Joan 
Landy's child from the time I left Dunmaine. 

207 



The Annesley Case. 



Mary Heath Did you ever hear that he was in Dublin? — 1 heard that my 
lord had taken him, but I know nothing of him. On the death 
of Lord Altham I received a letter from Mrs. MacMullen giving 
an account of the death of his lordship. I at once showed the 
letter to my lady, but she said notliing at all. My lady did 
not come into any fortune upon the death of her husband. 
The estate went to the late Lord Anglesea, she not having a 
jointure settled on her, but if she had had a child the Altham 
estate would have come to it. My lady had no more account 
of his lordship's death than what was contained in that letter. 
She was in mourning at the time for King George. Lord 
Altham never sent my lady a farthing after the separation. 
She was supported by my Lord Duke, and when he died he left 
her £100 a year. 

I know Mr. Mackercher, and I recognise him in Court. He 
came to my house in St. Andrew's Court, Holborn, on 13th 
April, 1742, and said that he had come to ask me some ques- 
tions as to whether my Lady Altham ever had a child. I told 
him that she never had one while I lived with her. Then he 
told me how this Mr. Annesley Avas recommended to him by 
two lieutenants ; one of their names was Lieutenant Simpson, 
but the other I do not know. He then told me how he came to 
him and said that he, Mackercher, gave him ten guineas. Mr. 
Annesley told him he had no lodging, and he took him in. He 
then showed me a list of the servants with my name at the 
top. When I saw the name of Joan Laffan I asked what she 
could know about this affair, and he told me that she said 
that she saw old Parson Lloyd christen the child. I said that 
I knew him. He then thanked me, and said he was very well 
satisfied with what I had told him, that he would go home and 
wash his thands of them and turn them all out of doors. He 
added that he would not have missed seeing me for a thousand 
pounds; that if I were dead my Lord Anglesea would lose hia 
estate and title, as there would be such bloody swearing. I 
said I was sorry that he had been so imposed on, and I assured 
him that my lady had not a child. I said that if my lord and 
lady had had a child born to such an estate they would have 
had him registered. I showed him Mrs. MacMulIen's letter, and 
he told me that Juggy Landy did not deny that she had a 
child by my lord, but that it died young. 

When we returned to Dublin after the assizes Lady Altham 
lodged at Mrs. Vice's house in Essex Street. She was not then 
with child, and she never had a miscarriage while I lived with 
her. She might lie for a day or two in bed while she was at 
Mrs. Vice's, but I never told anybody that she had miscarried. 
I never had any conversation with Mrs. Vice's maid Catherine. 
I never had any discourse with one Ally who waited on Mrs. 

208 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Briscoe's mother as to my lady being with child. I do not know Mary Heath 

that I ever saw Alice Betts at Mrs. Vice's. Lord Altham used 

to call my lady Molly, but I never heard him call her Moll 

Shefl&eld. I am positive I never told Alice Betts anything as a 

piece of good news. It is not the case that while Mrs. Briscoe 

and her daughter were at Dunmaine I called Mrs. Briscoe out 

of bed. I remember that there were some cups and saucers at 

Dunmaine that had some very ugly and indecent figures on 

them, and my lady never cared to use them. One day the 

housekeeper had got some of the saucers to put the dessert on, 

and there happened to be some words at the table, and my 

lord threw them on the ground, as I was told, but that did 

not cause any fright to my lady or put her out of sorts. I 

was in my lady's room next morning. There were no servants 

there unless the housemaid, who used to come and light the fire. 

Do you remember one Mary Doyle in the family ? — No ; Betty 
Doyle, I did. Miss Briscoe might be there for all I remember. 
I remember Mr. Sutton, the surgeon. My lady never liked him, 
and he went from the house and was away some time. I don't 
think he could attend my lady in any illness without my knowing 
it. I never knew of any confinement for about a fortnight 
that required the attendance of a surgeon. I do not know that 
Sutton ever refused to come when sent for. I knew Mrs. Shiels, 
the midwife, at Ross, but I never saw her at Dunmaine in my 
life. I do not remember the name of Dennis Redmonds. I 
never gave any directions to any servant to fetch Mrs. 
Shiels to my lord's house. I do not remember the name of 
Thomas Brooks, and I cannot be positive whether my lady 
was ever let blood. At the time of the separation it was said 
that the servants had cut off Mr. Palliser's ear, but I cannot tell 
anything about it, not being present. 

Had you ever any discourse with persons to this purpose, 
that if my lady was to be frightened at this rate she would 
never go with a child? — No. I do not know whether my lady 
kept her bed a day or more while Mrs. Briscoe was at Dunmaine. 
I never called Mrs. Briscoe out of bed at any time earlier than 
usual. Sutton, the surgeon, was back and forward in the 
house. I do not remember that he lived in the house for any 
time about the time of the saucers being broken. I am certain 
that Joan Laffan did not call me down to rescue Mr. Palliser 
from being murdered. My lord came up and told me about 
the affair. The incident as to the saucers happened while 
Mrs. Briscoe was in the house. I was never present in tlie room 
while they were at dinner. I cannot tell what is the age of 
Miss Briscoe. 

Cross-exaniiiie<l — When Lady Altham came over to Dublin 
she lodged at Captain Briscoe's, and I^ord Altham was brought 
to that house and reconciled. About 4th or 5th December they 
p 209 



The Annesley Case. 



Mary Heath went straight from there to Dunmaine, where we arrived on 
Christmas Eve. They did not go to Mrs. Vice's house on that 
occasion. I remember that Mrs. Briscoe and her daughter were 
at Dunmaine House on St. George's Day, and she desired my 
lord to make use of her house when he stayed in Dublin. He 
went to her house for some little time, and afterwards went to 
Mrs. Vice's. Wlien we were at Dunmaine we heard of a great 
many quarrels that my lord was in, and my lady, when she 
heard of such doings, came up to town. That was shortly 
before the Queen died. We then lodged at Mrs. Vice's, and 
stayed there for three or four weeks, and then we returned to 
Dunmaine. We remained there till the May following, and 
then we went back to Mrs. Vice's, where we stayed for more 
than a year. All of Mr. Maurice Annesley's daughters. Cherry, 
Sarah, and Dolly, visited my lady when she was at Mrs. Vice's 
in May, 1715. I knew Mrs. Charity Annesley very well, and 
I am certain that my lady was visited by her while she was 
lodging at Mrs. Vice's. I remember on one occasion at Mrs. 
Vice's — I cannot remember whether it was in 1714 or 1715 — my 
lord was making a great noise with a chair, and I went to 
take the chair away from him, and he took a hold of my 
headclothes. I do not think that my Lady Altham screamed 
out upon that occasion, because she would rather have been 
killed than that any one should have heard it. I remember on 
another occasion my lord said that he would send for one Mrs. 
Lucas to see whether my lady was with child, for if she was 
not he would turn her off and would not live with her, but that 
he would know whether she was with child before he turned 
her away. I do not remember whether my lady was confined 
to her chamber, but I am certain that there was no miscarriage. 
I never knew of any lady seeing the woman from the house 
on the quay to whom I had given the pistole in earnest. I had 
no conversation with her about the return of that pistole, so far 
as I know. I believe if she had seen the woman she would have 
told me about it. One MacMullcn went and received the 
pistole, and gave it back either to me or to my lady. Mr. 
Annesley's lodgings in 1715 were opposite the Custom House. 
I cannot tell how far his lodgings would be from Essex Bridge. 
Lady Altham lodged at Captain Sweeney's house at Wexford. 
Mrs. Giffard's sister, who was unmarried, was one of the com- 
pany. I cannot tell whether they went to hear the trial of the 
Pretender's men, but my lord and lady might know about that 
trial. I remember that Anthony Dyer was ill at the time, and 
Rolph went to Wexford, but he did not lodge in the same 
house with my lord. I cannot tell whether he attended my 
lord or not. I mentioned Juggy Landy's being with child on the 
very night that we arrived at Dunmaine. I cannot tell how 
long she continued in the house after that. 

2IO 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Pray, madam, could your righteous spirit bear that this Mary Heath 
woman should stay so long in the house? — Indeed, I did not 
concern myself about her. I have never seen Lady Blessington 
visit Lady Altham. Mrs. Pigot visited Lady Altham more 
frequently at Ross than at Dunmaine. There was a crowd of 
people at Ross when we arrived there after the separation, 
but it was so dark that I could not see who they were. The 
day after the quarrel between my lady and Captain Annesley 
my lady sent for him to come to dinner, but he would not 
come, and he left Dunmaine and never came back again while 
my lady was there. 

I saw Mr. Annesley several times at my house in London, 
and I told him that my lady had not a child. I never told 
Mr. Hussy that the plaintiff was greatly wronged, and that I 
knew more of that affair than anybody. The first time I heard 
of the report that Mr. Annesley was on board Vernon's Fleet 
was when I was sent for by the Duchess of Buckingham. I had 
not seen Mr. Hussy at that time. When my lady came to 
Dublin from Ross she was lame, and by degrees she lost the 
use of her limbs. I cannot tell how she came by that disorder. 

Did not that disorder come on her after there was a report 
that she had a child? — A child! The disorder began at Ross. 
There was a report of Lady Altham's being with child before 
I went to live with her ladyship, but there was no such report 
after I went to live with her. My ladyship enjoyed all her 
understanding and all her senses, and was able to manage her 
own affairs till the day before she died. The £100 a year left 
by the duke was to cease upon the death of Lord Altham, but 
my lady the duchess gave her £100 a year after the duke's 
death. I am not a washerwoman; I take in plain work, and 
I have some money at interest. The Duke of Buckingham died 
before we left Ross. My daughter and I have the interest of 
about £700 between us, the greater part of which is my 
daughter's. 



Eighth Day, Saturday, ipth November, 1743. 

Alderman Robbiit Kinc;, o.\-amined — I knew the late Lady Robert King 
Altham. She lodged at my house in the year 1723 for about 
thirteen or fourteen months. She had a maidservant called 
Heath. Her ladyship dined almost every day at my table, 
and frequently talked to me about hor family and misfortunes. 
I believe from the fre(iuency of the conversation that she bad 
with me that if her ladyship had a child or a son she would 
have told me. She never told me nor did I hear her say that 



The Annesley Case. 



Robert King bhe had a son. I never saw a child at the house. Her ladyship 
could not stir, as she was weak in her limbs. Mrs. Heath was 
a kind of companion to my lady, and bore a good character. 
My lady had a kind of paralytic disorder in her limbs, but 
that did not in any way affect her understanding. 

E. Moiioy Elizabeth Mollot, examined — My maiden name is Betty 
Doyle. I lived as a servant with Lady Altham at Dunmaine 
about thirty years ago. My lady came to Dunmaine on 
Christmas Eve. I served as a laundrymaid, and lived there for 
a year and a quarter, when I was married, and removed with 
my husband to a place about three-quarters of a mile from 
Dunmaine. I continued to live in that place for eleven years. 
I remember Lord Altham coming to me after the separation 
and asking me if I would dry-nurse Juggy Landy's child. I said 
to him, " I will dry-nurse a child for you, but I will never nurse 
a child for Juggy Landy." I saw the child when it was about 
a year old, but I never nursed it. I cannot remember how 
long the separation was after I left the service. When my lord 
asked me to dry-nurse Juggy Landy's child he wanted me to 
take it into my own house. I do not remember how old the 
child was then. By virtue of my oath, I never knew of my 
Lady Altham being delivered of a child, dead or alive, while 
I was in her service. If my lady had had a child at Dunmaine 
she would have been very proud of it. I have heard her say 
that she wished she had a son or a daughter, but she never 
had any. I never knew of any child being christened in Dun- 
maine House while my lady was there, nor did I ever hear 
of any rejoicings upon any occasion among the servants any 
time while I was there. 

Cross-examined — I was hired in Dublin. Lady Altham never 
spoke to me about having a child, but I was told by some one 
that she wished she had one. I cannot remember what time 
of tlie year it was that my lord asked me to dry-nurse the 
child. I cannot tell how long it was after my lady had left 
Dunmaine. I only saw the child once, and it was then at its 
mother's breast. I cannot tell how long it was after I saw the 
child that my Lord Altham applied to me to dry-nurse it. I 
do not know Mr. Jans or Matthias Reilly. I know Mr. Well- 
man, of Ross; he never applied to me to come here. I do not 
know David Hewlett, and I never told any one of that name 
about my lady's having a child at Dunmaine. I was with my 
Lady Altham in Dublin after she left Dunmaine, and also in 
Ross. I cannot tell how long it was after my marriage that 
my lord applied to me to dry-nurse the child. He made the 
proposal himself when he was hunting. 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Martin Neif, examined — I was a smith to Lord Altham at Martin Neif 
Dunmaine, and took care of the horses. I lived in the liouse 
for about a year before my lady came, and I continued in it 
while she was there except for a period of three months when 
I was ill, during which time I lived at Ross and also at 
Thomastown. I cannot tell what season of the year these three 
months were in. I believe my lady was almost a year in the 
house before I fell sick. I remember very well when my lady 
left the house, because I went along with her to Ross when my 
lord and she parted. I cannot tell how long that would be 
after my sickness. Lady Altham came to Dunmaine a day or 
two before Christmas and stayed there for about three years, 
leaving about Candlemas time. During these three years 
she went to Wexford once, and several times to Dublin. I 
never saw any child in Dunmaine House except a bastard son 
of Joan Dandy's, which I saw in the house about two months 
after my lady had left. 

Was the child taken into the house to live, or did you see it 
only accidentally? — It was taken into the house to live. At 
that time Anthony Dyer was my lord's gentleman. After 
Anthony Dyer left my lord's gentleman was one Kennedy. I 
cannot be positive whether Dyer or Kennedy was my lord's 
gentleman when the child came into the house, but I am sure 
it was either the one or the other. I saw Juggy Landy when 
she was with child, and I remember being told that she had 
been brought to bed. I afterwards saw the child in her arms 
twenty times about the house to get something to eat and 
drink, which she got from the butler, Tom Rolph. She never 
nursed any other child than this one while she stayed in the 
country. A dairymaid called Black Kate took care of Juggy 
Landy's child after he was taken into the house. I afterwards 
saw the same child at Kinnea, and also at Dublin, playing with 
other boys. When I saw him in Dublin he was in a very in- 
different condition, and he was playing with shoe boys. I 
believe that my lord at this time was living in Frapper Lane. 
Bv the virtue of my oath, the boy I saw in Dublin was the same 
one as 1 had seen in Kinnea. He was between four and five 
years old when he went to Kinnea, and about five or six years 
old when he left. I have not f;een the Ijoy since I saw him in 
Dublin. 

Have you seen him of late? — I would not swear that for a 
thousand pounds. I do not think T should know him now. 
I believe my Lord Altham stayed at Kinnea for about two years. 
The boy was then reputed to be the bastard sou of Juggy 
Landy and my lord. I have been present when my lord gavo 
directions to his servants that if Juggy Landy should come 
near th<' honsf they were to sot the dogs at her, and ho would 
flay, "God damn the bastard; he'll never be good; he has 

2r3 



The Annesley Case. 



Martin Neif too much of his mother, Juggy Landy's, blood in him." Juggy 
Laiidy was at one time kitchenmaid in Dunmuine House, but 
she had to leave because she was big with child. I cannot 
tell how long Lord Altham lived in the house after the separa- 
tion. I never heard of any christening in the house all the 
time that I or my lady was there. My lady's woman was Mrs. 
Heath, and she alone attended my lady all the time they were 
at Dunmaine. I was at Dunmaine both before and after my 
lady came down. I cannot recollect what company came 
with her. I was in the house at the time of the separation, 
which took place on a Sunday. I met my lord coming up 
stairs with a drawn sword in his hands. I asked him what 
was the matter. He told me to liold my tongue, and he w'ent 
into my lady's room. I thought it not proper for me to go 
in, so I stayed behind, and then I heard an uproar in the 
room. I went with my lady to Ross. We arrived there just 
at nightfall, because my lady had desired the coachman not 
to go into the town till late. There was no one present with 
my lady but Mrs. Heath, the coachman, and I. There was 
no child brought to take leave of my lady. The child I saw 
at Dunmaine was called Jemmy Landy. He was with his 
nurse at that very time. 

What nurse? — Juggy Landy, his mother. 

Why did you call her the nurse? — Because I saw her nursing 
him. I cannot express myself as another man, but you will 
find recommendations from the best in Iieland concerning me. 
Joan Laffan was in the house both before and after the separa- 
tion. I cannot lemember whether she was laundrymaid or 
chambermaid. When I was living at Dunmaine I remember 
that my lady was visited by Captain and Mrs. Giffard, Mr. 
and Mrs. William Gififard, and Mr. Elms. My lord and lady 
used to go to Mr. Tench's and other places. I never knew 
Joan Laffan to attend a child at Dunmaine. The only one 
who took care of the boy after he was brought to Dunmaine 
was Black Kate. 

Cross-examined — I did not live with my lord at Kinnea all 
the time he was there because I was married in the house and 
I went to live at Kildare, where I have been ever since. I 
think I would go to Kildare some twenty or twenty-one years 
ago. Before I went with my lord to Kinnea after the separa- 
tion, we were for about a year at a place called Ballysonnan. 
I have no idea how long my lord continued to live at Dun- 
maine after the separation. I remember he went to Dublin 
and then back to Dunmaine, but I cannot name the time. 
The child was taken into the house of Dunmaine before my 
lord left the country. He had not sixpence worth of clothes 
on his wiiole body when he came to the house. I think there 
214 



Evidence for Defendant. 

■were some old clothes made of silk that were made down for Martin Neif 

him. I do not recollect what their colour was. I did not 

return to Kinnea after I left my lord's service. I believe the 

child would be about five years old when I left Kinnea. The 

child was in very indifferent clothes all the time I stayed at 

Kinnea. He had a little habit and a petticoat of slate colour. 

The clothes he had at Kinnea were not the same as he had at 

Dunmaine. At Dunmaine he had a kind of habit made out of 

an old nightgown or some such thing. The first clothes he 

had at Kinnea which were made for him were worse than the 

clothes he had at Dunmaine. At Kinnea he had a kind of 

scarlet coat and breeches, said to be made out of a coat of my 

lord's. I remember they said that Jemmy would foul hia 

breeches because they were the first he had on. I am almost 

certain I saw him dressed in this new scarlet coat before I left 

Kinnea. He was in his slate-coloured clothes when my lord used 

to order the servants to whip him whenever he did amiss. He 

did not give those directions to me because I was an out-servant, 

but I believe he gave them to the coachman. 1 have heard 

him say that he would break any servant's head in the house 

that would let Juggy Landy in to see the boy. I heard him 

tell Rice the coachman at that time to correct the boy, adding 

that he would never do good because he had too much of the 

blood of his mother, Juggy Landy, in him. I saw Rice two 

days ago in town. I heard my lord give these directions in 

the open kitchen before all the servants. The boy would then 

be coming to five years old, to the best of my knowledge. He 

always used the Avords, " Juggy Landy, his mother." During 

the time I lived at Kinnea the boy used to be in the parlour, 

but I never saw my lord very fond of him. I did not attend 

at table as a servant because I worked as a smith, but I very 

often saw my lord at dinner and at supper, because I was as 

free with him as any servant could be with a master. I would 

see him at supper as I went through the passage to bed, and 

sometimes I would go into the room to let him know that I 

wanted iron to shoe the horses. I never saw the cliild sit at 

table with my lord. Anthony Dyer did not live with my lord 

at Ballysonnan, to the best of my recollection. I cannot 

recollect whether Kennedy lived with my lord before he left 

Kinnea. I did not live with my lord when I saw the boy in 

College Green, Dublin. I was just about leaving my lord 

when the clothes were made for the child at Kinnea. I know 

Mr. Miss(!t, l>ut I never saw him at Kinnea. When I saw the boy 

at College Creen ho se(!nied to be about seven or eight years old. 

1 think I had boon living at Kildarc for about two years before T 

saw him at College Croon. 1 know him to bo the same l)oy 

at Kinnea. T do not know whether Mr. Misset used to hunt 

because I would know him among five tliousanrl. He wore 

215 



The Annesley Case. 



lartlnjNelf his own hair. I know two persons called John Fitzgerald in 
Kihlare, but I never told either of them that Mr. Jans had 
given me money and clothes. Mr. Jans never gave me a 
Bhilling to this hour. I never told Fitzgerald that my Lady 
Altham had a child. The way I came to appear here is that 
I happened to be shoeing a horse for a man in Kildare who came 
from the county of Wexford, and as we were talking about this 
affair I desired him to tell my lord's agent, Mr. Derenzy, that 
I was living, and to send for me to give my testimony if 
necessary. I have never got half a guinea to thivS hour. 

Did you name the agent's name to this man? — No; I asked 
him his name, and he told me it was Derenzy. I believe this 
would take place about a twelvemonth ago. I heard from 
people that knew anything about this matter that my Lord 
Altham's son was coming over to take the estate from my 
Lord Anglesea. 

Did any one tell you that Jemmy Landy was coming over? 
— They did not, for I believe they did not know of him by 
that name. 

IIow came you to know that this was the son that was coming 
over? — Because I know my lord had no son but the one that 
he had by Juggy Landy. I give my oath that I saw the child 
in bed with black Kate at Dunmaine. Little care did I ever 
see Joan Laffan take of the child in my life. 

What care did you see her take of him? — Why, every one 
would dress him and give him victuals. I never saw the child 
•with a scarlet hat and feather at Dunmaine. When my lord 
went to Ballysax — the hounds and horses being at Ballysonnan 
— he left the child at Dunmaine, and then he went to Kinnea. 
When we were at Kinnea Harry Aston was groom, Price was 
footman. Rice was a coachman, and I was the smith. I was 
twenty times at Kinnea before the child came there. I cannot 
tell at what time it was that the child came to Kinnea, but we 
had not been there so long as a year. I could not tell who 
came along with the child. I cannot tell whether Juggy LafTan 
came with him I saw her there ; my lord was going to duck 
her there, and would have done so but for the present lord, who 
hindered him, on account of the goods that she stole at Dun- 
maine. I cannot tell whether my lord sent for the child. I 
believe there is a tailor called Francis Mullhall that lives 
somewhere near KilcuUen Bridge. I cannot tell whether I 
saw this tailor at Kinnea or not, and I do not know whether it 
was he that made the scarlet breeches and coat for the child 
out of my lord's coat. I believe I would see these clothes on 
the child about a fortnight before I left Kinnea. I am not 
quite sure as to the material of which they were made, but I 
am sure that the colour was red. The boy went to John 
Mahony's school at Kinnea, but he dieted and lodged at my 
216 



Evidence for Defendant. 

lord's house. He did not go to any other school but Mahony's Martin Nelf 
that I know of. He was a good, clean-faced boy with flaxen 
hair. I do not remember ever seeing him naked. I do not 
know whether my lord was living in Frapper Lane or not when 
I saw the boy playing on the streets with shoeblacks, but I 
was told that he was living there. I have heard my lord say 
in presence of the child that Juggy Landy was the child's 
mother. The child was treated as the bastard son of Juggy 
Landy. While I was in the service I saw some of the gentle- 
men of the neighbourhood that came to see my lord. I cannot 
say that everybody that visited my lord looked upon the child 
as his bastard child, but he was so reputed among the servants. 

Was he treated as my lord's lawful son before the company 
that visited at Kinnea? — I never heard that he was. I never 
heard any of the gentlemen concern themselves with him at all. 

Was he introduced by my lord to any of the gentlemen that 
visited at Kinnea as my lord's son? — Not to my knowledge — as 
God is my judge, never to any one gentleman at all. I never 
saw the child dine or sup with my Lord Altham ; he always ate 
along with the servants. I never saw the child ride abroad 
with my lord ; he was not able to ride when I left. 

What was it that the child did that deserved all this correc- 
tion that was given him? — When the cook was dishing tlie 
meat he would perhaps come and throw the victuals down, and 
then they wouM go and complain to my lord, and he would 
order them to whip him. I have heard him give directions to 
Rice, the coachman, in the kitchen or at the kitchen door. 
There was a person called Mr. GeotYrey Paul that lived in the 
neighbourhood. I never saw him in my lord's company, and I 
do not know whether they were acquainted or not. My lord 
may have visited Mrs. Annesley at Ballysonnan, but I never 
knew him to d(> so. I never heard any complaint made against 
tlie child when gentlemen were in my lord's company. When 
the child was brought to Dunmaine Juggy Landy was living 
in her father's cottage. My lord gave directions that the child 
should not know his mother at all. I was present wlien my 
Lurd Altham ordered the hounds to be set upon Joan Landy, 
and William Elms was with my lord in the yard. The reason 
he gave was that he would not have the child see her at all. 
He did not give any reason for that in my hearing. I heard 
him say that he woukl give £500 that the boy should not know 
that Juggy L.'indy was his mother, and he would give £500 
more tfiat he liad been got by an Englisliwoman. 

Did he mean that he had been got by my Lady Altham? — I 
did not fiear him say a word of my lady at that time. Every- 
body in the house called the child Jemmy Landy, and by no other 
name. I have lieard the servants say that his name was Jemmy 
Annesley, because he was my lord's son, they said. So far as 

217 



The Annesley Case. 

»«rtin Nelf 1 kiunv. my lord gave no directions not to make known to the 
neighbourhood at Kinnea that he was not his son. The first 
school that the boy went to was at the Curragh, near the 
starting-post. I never knew of any of the servants going along 
with him to school. By virtue of my oath, I never heard the 
child called the young Lord Altham. To the best of my know- 
ledge, I lived for a year and a half at Kinnea. 

A. Cauifleld Anne Caulfibld, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady 
Altham when they lived at Dunmaine. I was living at Aclare, 
about Ih miles away, all the time that they lived together 
there. I never heard of my lady having a child till recently. 
I sometimes went to Dunmaine with an errand from my father 
and mother, and I saw Lady Altham there. I was acquainted 
with Elizabeth Molloy, Mr. Rolph, the butler; Anthony Dyer, 
and several more that I cannot remember, and also with Joan 
Landy, who was a kitchenmaid. Joan Landy was there before 
my lady came. During my acquaintance with the servants I 
never heard them say anything about my lady's having a child. 
I noticed Joan Landy to be big with child when they were 
dancing on St. George's Day, after my lady came to Dunmaine. 
I heard that Joan Landy was delivered of a child, and I saw it 
in her father's cottage, but I cannot exactly tell when. I heard 
her say that the child was my lord's. About three years after- 
wards I saw it at Patrick Furlong's school at Acclamon. Lady 
Altham was then living in Ross. I heard of the separation 
between my Lord and Lady Altham. The child did not go to 
school till after the separation. I have heard my lord calling 
to Patrick Furlong and asking where Jemmy was, and I have 
heard him say, " I will horsewhip you if you let Joan Landy, 
that bastard's mother, come within sight of him, for we can 
get no good of him; he'll be so cross, looking to go to her, 
that there will be no quieting him." I called at the school 
in order to see my two sisters, who were there. I never saw 
the boy at Dunmaine House to my knowledge. 

Cross-examined — I am forty-three or forty-four years old. 
I cannot t^ll how often I went to the school where I saw the boy. 
I only saw my loid there once. I cannot say how often I saw 
Joan Landy's child at her house. I cannot say whether I 
would see it more than once. When I saw the child at school, 
they told me that it was Joan Landy's child, and I believe it 
was the same from what I heard my lord say. I never heard 
that Joan Landy's child died. The only child that I heard 
she had before she was married w^as the child she had by my 
Lord Altham. I heard tlhit she had a child by her husband, 
Daniel MacCormack, and I have heard that it is dead. I 
know Father Downes, and I saw him to-day. I am a Papist. 

218 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Did Father Dowries promise to give you absolution after this A. Caulfleld 
trial was over for the evidence you should give? — He never did, 
by virtue of my oath, nor did I ever ask him the question. 

William Rowles, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady w. Rowies 
Altham when they were living at Dunmaine. I lived at a 
place called Bally killmore, about a mile from Dunmaine, and 
I was very well acquainted with my lord and all that were in 
the house, which I frequently visited. I remember when they 
separated. I never heard it said that my lady had or was with 
child. I was only a farmer, but my lord was pleased to have 
me in company with him, and took me a-hunting very often. 
He was godfather to a child of mine. The kitchenmaid told 
me she was with child by my lord, and I told him what she 
said,- and he replied that he believed it was so. Joan Landy 
was brought to bed in a little cottage where her father and 
mother lived. I have never been in that cottage. My lord 
often told that he never had any issue by his lady, and never 
expected to have any. He told me that while my lady was in 
England. If there had been any such thing as issue by my 
lady I must have heard of it both from him and from the 
servants, because his lordship would have told me, as he was 
pleased to give me liberty to be as free with him as if I had 
been his companion. After my lady parted from my lord the 
child was brought home to Dunmaine. I happened to be in 
the kitchen one day while the child and my lord were there, 
and I said, " I do not believe that Joan Landy belied your 
lordship, because the child favours your lordship about the 
eyes very much." And my lord said, " I believe so too, that 
Joan Landy has not belied me." He himself said that the 
mother was Joan Landy, and I and everybody in the house 
knew that it was his child by her. 

Cross-examined — The child would be about three or four 
years old when I saw it in the kitchen. He could speak L'ish 
but not English. I never spoke to the child in Irish. 

Did you ever hear the child speak at all? — No, I did not. 
To the best of my knowledge my lord had very black eye- 
brows and grey eyes. When I said that the child favoured 
my lord about the eyes he and my lord were face to face, and 
I could see quite distinctly. The eyebrows of the child were 
of the same colour as those of my lord. I did not pay par- 
ticular notice to the child's hair. I did not see his hair, 
because he wore a white linen cap. I never sfxjke to my lord 
again about the child, nor did I ever see the child afterwards. 
I do not know what l)ecamc of him. My lord did not use to 
talk familiarly to mo about his family affairs. 

Why would you then take the liberty of telling my lord that 

219 



The Anncsley Case. 



W. Rowles Joan Landy laid this child at his door? — Because my lord gave 
me the liberty of talking to him as being a sportsman. It 
was bel'ure my lady camo that Juggy Landy told me that she 
was with child, and I then told my lord that she laid the 
child to him. 

M. Downes Michael Dowkes, examined — I knew the late Lord and Lady 
Altham when they were living at Dunmaine. I knew my lord 
first. He was at Dunmaine for about a year and a half before 
my lady came. To the best of my knowledge my lady lived 
at Dunmaine for about three years and four or five weeks. I 
was then living at a place called Birrstown, about a mile from 
Dunmaine. My lord and lady once came to see me there, 
and I sometimes used to go and visit them at Dunmaine. I 
would go there perhaps about once a fortnight, or once in 
three weeks, and I supped and dined there two or three times 
along with my lord and lady. I am a registered priest, and 
have lived in the parish these forty-two years. I never heard 
that my lady had a child during the time she lived at Dunmaine. 
It would be impossible for her to have a child without my 
hearing of it. Dunmaine is part of the parish that I am priest 
of. My lord was once so free as to tell me that he wished 
he had a son, and I believe that if he had a son he would have 
told me of it. Besides that, a child could not be born in the 
parish without my knowing it, because I was the parish priest. 
Did you at that time register all the children that were bom 
in your parish? — I had a register at that time, but we did not 
use to put such children in our register. I registered Protest- 
ants' children when I christened them. I believe it would be 
about a year or a year and a half after my lord came to Dun- 
maine that he told me he wished he had a son. I was acquainted 
with Mrs. Heath, Mr. Rolph, and Anthony Dyer, but I do 
not remember the rest of the servants. I remember there 
was one Neif there, a smith, and there was also one Juggy 
Laffan. I never saw Juggy Laffan at mass. I saw Joan 
Landy, who was a kitchenmaid in my lord's service. My 
lord had a ball at Dunmaine, and Joan Landy was then per- 
ceived to be big with child and was turned away. She wr.s 
brought to bed in her cottage about the latter end of April, 
1714. Joan Landy 's mother brought the child to me at David 
Barns's house at Nash about 10th May, 1714, and as I thought 
there could be no harm done for making a Christian, I 
christened the child. I believe the child was then about a 
fortnight old. My lord asked me sometime afterwards whether 
I had christened the child, and I told him I had, and he said 
that it was very well done. When my lord asked me if I 
had christened the child he mentioned Joan Landy, and I 
said, " I have christened the child, but I have got no retri- 



Evidence for Defendant. 

bution." " Well, well," says he, " I will take care of that; M. Downes 

I will requite you hereafter." By " retribution " I mean 

christening money. At the request of James Landy's wife, 

who told me that my lord desired the child to be christened 

James Annesley, I gave him the name of James. I believe 

my lord asked me by what name I had christened the child, 

and I told him " James Annesley." 

Did you christen him or use any other name to him but one, 
James 1 — I did not, for the other name is not necessary ; but 
afterwards I said to the old women and godfathers that stood 
by, " This child must now be called James Annesley, because 
it is my lord's." The gossips were the grandmother and one 
David Barns, a blind man that lived at Nash. Juggy Landy 
was at that time unmarried. I have not seen the child since 
he was three or four years old, and I do not know what became 
of him. I never saw the child at Dunmaine while my lady 
resided there. One day I was going upstairs with my lord 
and we saw the child sitting on a chair in the parlour, and 
my lord said, " Why, you son of a whore, why don't you get 
up and make a bow to him that made you a Christian? " I 
do not remember having any other discourse with my lord 
about this child. The boy remained at Dunmaine after ho 
was brought to the house as long as my lord did, and he went 
to Patrick Furlong's school. I did not use to register illegiti- 
mate children. 

Suppose my lord had had an illegitimate son, would you 
have registered him? — I believe I would have registered that 
if my lord desired me. I never registered this boy Jemmy, 
because it was not usual to register such children who were 
merry Ijegot, because they are got by sin and one thing or 
another. There is no burying place upon the lands of Dun- 
maine. The people are generally buried at Nash, about a 
mile and a half from where I live. I do not think that any 
of my parisliioners or a child could be buried there without 
my knowing it. I am sure that I would have registered the 
funeral of this child, because I know he was a Christian. 

Cross-examinod — I cannot say that I visited my Lord and 
Lady Altham every fortnight, and it is quite possible that 
there might l;e three months when I did not see them. Besides 
that, I might go to the house and see my lord and yet not see 
my lady. To the Ixist of my recollection the separation 
hapf>ened about Candlemas. I visited them the Christmas 
before that. I cannot quite remember whether I ate a 
Candlemas gooso with them or not. I Iwlieve they wore 
at home during the midsummer before the separation, but I 
am not sure. My Indy was in Dublin one Christmas, as far 
as I can remember, the second Christmas after she first came. 
I believe she was in Dublin at Christmas, 1715. I remcmlxr 



The Annesley Case. 



M. Downes the timo the Protondoi's men were tried at Wexford. My 
Lord and Lady Althain went to Wexford, and my lord spoko 
to me there. It was during tho April assizes of 1715. I 
came home the day before the day of the great eclipse, which 
was the 2L'nd April, and my lord and hidy came to Dunmaine 
a few days after that. Nine or ten days afterwards they went 
to Dublin, and continued there that summer. My lord came 
back and was with us at Christmas, and my lady staj^cd in 
Dublin as far as I can remember. I am certain that Dun- 
maine is the estate of Crosar Colclough, because I know the 
whole parish belongs to him. No person came with Joan 
Landy's mother when she brought the child to be christened 
by me at Nash. She did not tell me that she had any direction 
from my lord with regard to that christening ; she told me 
the contrary, that she had no directions. 

Did she tell you so? — I heard it from oth^r people that my 
lord would have tho child christened by a parson. 

Are you sure this woman told you that my lord said he 
would have this child christened by a parson? — I am sure 
she did. I recollected myself and said, there can be no harm 
done to me for making a Christian. She did not tell me that 
my lord had given directions for me to christen the child, but 
she said that my lord desired his name to be James. 

Did she mention any other name that my lord desired that 
he should have? — Only Annesley. 

Did this woman say that my lord gave any directions to 
have him called James Annesley? — She told me so indeed. She 
said that all the directions were that my lord desired he should 
be called James. 

Did she tell you that my lord gave directions concerning 
calling it Annesley? — No, she did not tell me that, but I said, 
since you say it is my lord's son he ought to be called Annesley. 
I did not inquire of my lord before I christened this child 
whether he was the father or not; I thought it too mean to ask. 
The first time I saw the child after the separation would be 
about July or the beginning of August. I had not heard that 
the child was in the house before I saw it. As far as I can 
remember, he had on a green coat, a little cloak and a hat 
with lace tipon it. He had no breeches. I believe the coat was 
made of stuff; I do not think it was made of silk. The child 
was sitting in his cloak in a little chair when my lord and I 
went upstairs. The cloak was made of cloth of a whitish 
colour, but I do not remember in what manner it was made. 
The child was sitting in the parlour, and then my lord asked 
him to get up and make a bow to the gentleman that made him 
a Christian. The boy did not speak much, but he made a sort 
of bow to me. I never saw the child again. I believe he would 



Evidence for Defendant. 

be between three and four years old at that time. I cannot m. Downes 
say how long the child remained in the room. I only said, 
" God bless him," and that was all. My lord and I took a 
glass or two of white wine, and then we walked out again. I 
could not say whether the child remained in the room all that 
time. My lord spoke to the child in English, but I do not 
remember how the child answered him. I understand Irish, 
but I did not understand what the child said, because he did 
not speak plainly. I believe he was at school at that time. 
I did not see Juggy Landy at the ball to which I referred, 
because I was not there at all, but people that knew her and 
talked to her told me that she was then big with child. 

I have had no register for the last twenty years. I never 
registered any Protestant's child in my parish, because I sup- 
posed that the parson would register them. By virtue of 
my oath, I never buried a child of Joan Landy's, but I heard 
that she had a boy that died of the smallpox, and they did not 
send for me to bury him. I believe I heard that about a year 
ago. If I heard it before, I did not remember of it. Joan 
Lundy was married to one MacCormack by me, and I suppose 
they had two or three children christened. I never buried a 
child of this woman's, lawful or unlawful, but I was told that 
there was such a child buried at Nash. I believe it might be 
twenty years ago. I could not say whether the child that made 
me a bow was like Lord Altham, because I did not pay par- 
ticular notice to him. I believe that he was a dark child, 
but I won't be positive. I could not say when it was that I 
heard my lord say that he wished he had a child. 

I came home on 21st April straight from the Wexford Assizes. 
Wexford is about 11 miles away from where I live. I was 
bound over at Wexford because of some people giving infor- 
mation that I was for the Pretender. I did not apply to any 
of the gentlemen to befriend me, because I had no need of it. 
I was bound over from that assizes to another, and then I 
was discharged by the proclamation of the Court. I had seen 
and spoken to Lord Altham about a hundred times before I 
saw liim at the assizes. There is a priest Mackay in Dublin 
that I knew at Wexford. I do not remember that I have ever 
had any conversation with any other man of my function 
concerning money that I could get from my Lord Anglesca. 
I never consulted a priest as to whether it would be lawful 
for me to take a sum of money from my Lord Anglesea, nor 
did I ever ask a priest if he would give me absolution if I did. 
Mr. Cajsar Colclough was not living at Tyntorn at tlic time 
I went to tho assizes. My Lord and Lady Altham separated 
about Candlemas, and my hrd stayed on at Dunniaine for about 
a year. It i:s not common in our Church to bury very young 

223 



The Anneslcy Case. 



M. Downas children witliout a priest, but sometimes poor people do not 
send for us to do it. It is usual to say divine service at the 
burial of infants. 

Re-examined— I married Joan Landy to one MacCormack, 
and I christened two or three children for them. I have only 
heard of one of her children that died of the smallpox. The 
father of that child was MacCormack. 

Ke-cross-examined — I do not remember the names of tho 
children that Joan Landy had by MacCormack. I was told by 
people of credit that the child which died of the smallpox was 
her child. David Barns told me so, and he is an honest man. 
To the best of my knowledge, Joan Landy was married some 
three or four years after tho separation of my Lord and Lady 
Altham. 

P. Furlong Patrick Furlong, examined — I knew Lord Altham all the 
time he stayed at Dunmaine. I was engaged fowling for him 
for five or six years. I had a small farm, and I also kept a 
school for a time upon the lands of Acclamon. I remember 
the names of some of the children that came to my school. I 
had a child of Juggy Landy's at my school called Jemmy. He 
was put to school to mo by my Lord Altham, and he remained 
for five or six months. He would be two and a half or three 
years old when he came to school. I used to go myself for 
him every morning to my lord's and carry him back in the 
evening. The child came to my school about two months after 
my lord and lady separated. My lord came to me two or three 
times and ordered me at my peril not to let his mother, Joan 
Landy, come near him. He did not mention any reason why 
he did not wish the mother to see him. On these occasions he 
was going a-hunting, and he just looked in to see if Jemmy 
Landy was at the school. The child at this time lived at 
Dunmaine. I last saw Joan Landy about six or seven years 
ago, when she was a servant to a baker at Ross. I also saw her 
about a year ago in January or February. I cannot tell what 
became of the boy after he left my school. He wore a very 
ordinary dress made of red and black stuff. He had not a frock 
over it at first, but afterwards he had. I also saw him in a 
little brown habit. I do not remember what it was made of, 
but it was not silk. He always wore a white cap on his head. 
He was looked upon as my Lord Altham's son by Joan Landy. 
I remember my lady coming to Dunmaine about Christmas Eve. 
I was very often at Dunmaine House, but I could not say how 
many times. I never heard of my lady's having a child from 
the time she came to Dunmaine till the time she left it. I once 
saw the boy at Ross, when he was four or five years old. Ho 
was a smart, pretty boy, and I am certain that he was the 
same boy as came to my school. 
224 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Cross-examined — The boy came to my school about a month P. Fuplong 
after the separation, and I think he would be about two and a 
half or three years old. He spoke Irish very smartly, but he 
only understood a few words of English, because his grandfather 
and grandmother could not speak English. I believe I saw 
the boy at Ross about a year and a half or tw'o years after- 
wards. I did not teach the boy to read or write. He had a 
likeness to my lord, but I cannot give an account of it. I do 
not know of what colour his eyes or my lord's eyes were. 
He had brown hair. "Wlien I brought the child home at nights 
I took him to the servant in the kitchen. Sometimes he would 
walk and sometimes I would carry him, and sometimes a servant 
would go along with us. I am certain that the child I saw at 
Ross was the same, because I knew him very well. Lord 
Altham gave me a crown piece for the child coming to school. 
He did not make much progress in learning English, I am 
sure. After he left my school he was about the house at Dun- 
maine, and he did not go to any other school, so far as I knew. 
My lord did not show any dissatisfaction at the little progress 
the boy had made with me. The boy was not taken away till 
I gave up the school in September. Mr. Rolph could not speak 
Irish. Joan Landy could speak a little English. 

Arthuu Herd, examined — I am a peruke maker to trade. I *''*''"'' ^^''^ 
entered into the service of the late Lord Altham in March, 
1720. I was an apprentice at that time, but I had run away 
from my master. Lord Altham was then staying at Carrick- 
duff. There was a child there called Jemmy Annesley, who 
was reputed to be my lord's son by Juggy Landy, and was 
treated as such by the family. I lived with Lord Altham 
at Carrickduff all the time he was there till we came to Dublin 
about Noveml^er, 1722. The child sometimes ate at my lord's 
table, and he was taught to spell by one Straghan, a harper, 
who used to draw pretty little pictures. My lord was visited 
by several gentlemen in the neighbourhocKl, but the only ones 
I remember are Mr. Warren and Major Dunbarr from Carlow. 
When I went to Carrickduff first the boy had a scarlet coat, 
and I believe a laced hat. I do not remember seeing him 
corrected by my lord at Canickduff, but I have known him to 
correct him severely Jit Frappcr Lane when ho was accused of 
pilfering. When my lord left Carrickduff he went to live 
at Cross Lane, in Dublin. The child was brought tliere, and 
went to school, I tliink. in Ransfnrd Street. He was rcj)uted 
my lord's natural son l)y Joan Landv. My lord afterwards 
went to live in Frapper Lane, and T was his servant there. 
The child came there with the rest of the family, Miss Crogory, 

Mrs. I forget the servantmaid's name. The child was 

worwe kept there than anywhere else, because his clothes had 

V 225 



The Anncsley Case. 



Arthur Herd grown old. He was Bent to Cartliy's School in Plunket's 
Yai-d, and he was always re])uted to be my lord's son by Joan 
Landy. I believe my lord lived in Frapper Lane for about 
twelve months, and then he went to Inchicore. The boy did 
not go to Inchicore, but was sent to a very orderly woman, 
Mrs. Cooper, in Little Ship Street. I saw nothing of him 
till 15th of November, twelve months ago. To the best of 
my i-cmembrance my lord went to Inchicore in the year 1724, 
and I left six months after that. 

On the morning of 15th November, 1742, I was sent for 
by one Simon Whelan, who told me that he remembered me 
at Dunmaino, and said that if I would speak but three or four 
words cunningly my fortune was made. He went with me 
to the Bear Inn in Enniscorthy, and I asked to see the gentle- 
man that had sent for me. I saw one called Mackercher, and 
in reply to him I told him that I had lived with my Lord 
Altham. I also told him that I would know James Annesley 
if I met him in the streets of London. I said I would know 
him, because I had often cut his hair, and I could recognise 
him by the turn of his forehead and his eyes. Then Mr. 
Mackercher called the gentleman out of the dining-room and 
asked if he would know Arthur Heid, and he said he 
should, that I had often made him fiddles and little play- 
things, and then when he came in he kissed me and embraced 
me very tenderly. I was not positive it was he till he gave 
me some marks and tokens and other private reasons. Mr. 
Mackercher told mo that I would be called upon as a witness, 
and I said that I would not swear falsely for the whole 
Anglesea estate. Mr. Mackercher asked me whether I knew 
Lady Altham, and whether Mr. Annesley was not like her. 
On my denying it, he asked me who was Jemmy Annesley's 
mother, and I told him that the answer to that question truly 
would be of no service to his cause, that Joan or Juggy Landy 
was his mother. Upon that Mr. Mackercher tore up the 
paper that he was writing and threw it into the fireplace. Neil 
O'Neill, the footman (the husband of Catherine Caulfield, who 
took care of the child at Carrickduff), clapped me on the 
shoulder in the presence of Mr. Annesley and Mr. Mackercher, 
and said to me that I need not live any longer in this place, 
and asked what place I should like to live in, but I just 
frowned at the fellow. 

When I was in the service of Lord Altham I shaved him, 
and did everything he commanded me, and I also copied his 
letters. I remember on one occasion I was copying some 
denominations of lands to be sold in reversion to Mr. One- 
eiphorus Gamble. There was some talk as to whom the great 
estate should fall, and my lord said it would go to Captain 
Charles Annesley, but he would endeavour to get an English 
226 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Act of Parliament to settle the estate along with the titles Arthur Herd 
on his brother. One time at Carrickduft", when 1 was in 
bed with a bad cold, my lord came up to me with some mulled 
claret. Master Annesley was playing about the room. My lord 
asked me if my mother was a Protestant or a Papist, and I 
told him that she was a Protestant, and then he said, " I'd 
rather than a hundred guineas th;it this boy's mother was 
60." My lord mentioned to me the name of the mother, and 
also of the grandmother. I used to go to Ross to see my 
friends, and when I did so Master Annesley would send his duty 
to his mother. I reminded him of that when I met him in 
Enniscorthy, and particularly I said, " Don't vou remember I 
brought you a pair of stockings that your mother sent you?" 
l^pon that Mr. Mackercher said that it was customary for Irish 
women to call the children they nursed their children, and for 
the children to call them their mothers. I told Mr. Annesley 
it was unfortunate for him that his mother lived so near my 
father's house, or else perhaps I should not have known her. 
I cannot remember whether this was before or after Mr. Mac- 
kercher tore up the jjaper, but I remember (hat Mr. Annesley 
trembled and looked pale when I mentioned that Joan Landy 
was his mother. Mr. Annesley said it was strange that I 
should not say what all the rest of the servants of the house 
said, and I replied, " Sir, you know I was nearer my lord, 
and knew better than the other servants that have said so." 
When I said I was nearer my lord than the others I meant 
that I was copying his letters, that I knew his secrets, being 
his immediate attendant. It was Joan Landy who gave me 
the pair of stockings to bring to the child ; she bade me give 
them to her son along with her blessing. Mr. Mackercher 
said that it was quite common for nurses to send such trifles 
to their nursed children. 

Cross-examined — I think Captain Levingston was present 
during this conversation, but I do not think O'Neill was theiv. 
I have seen Lord Altham correct the boy several times in 
Frapper Lane. He was accused of pilfering, and he owned it 
himself to my lord. I never knew of any complaints being 
made of him by Miss Gregory to my lord. He was sometimes 
corrected Jilso for not minding his book. I have heard my 
lord say that Afr. Carthy had complained of him. 

Could not Carthy have corrected the boy himself? — It is 
likely that my lord was angry at seeing the boy so dull and 
backward. While I was with my lord my lady lived in Ross, 
and also at Charles Cavanagh's, near Frajjper I>ane. When 
I waR an apprentice in Ross I saw her going to church and 
walking out to take the air. I was about seventeen years 
old when I went to live with Lord Altham. Master Annesley 
had then a scarlet coat made out of an old coat of my lord's. 

227 



The Anncsley Case. 



Arthur Herd It was a very handsome dress, and my lord used to be merry, 
and say, " I keep my son in scarlet because his mother wore 
a rod petticoat." 1 never saw Lady Altham uear a red 
petticoat. I cannot tell whether my lord ever dined at Mr. 
Byrne's or Mr. Cavanagh's while I was at Carrickdutf. It 
was my general practice to wait on my loid at table. I have 
Been several of the Owens there, and also a Mr. Stone and 
others. Master Annesley never rode out with my lord to 
dinner to my knowledge. He never wore a feather that I 
aaw, and he did not have a silk coat to my knowledge. He 
could not have had one without my knowledge unless it was 
past wearing. He had a little sorrel horse, and I have seen 
him ride his horse a-hunting with my lord, but he never went 
with my loid to visit the neighbourhood to my knowledge. 
He never dined with my lord when any gentlemen of any rank 
or appearance were present, but he would dine at my lord's 
table when little farmers and such sort of people were present. 
I told Captain Levingston that I had some charge over tlie 
boy, that I cut his hair and powdered it, but I did not say 
that he was put into my entire charge. I told them that 
Catherine O'Neill, the laundrymaid, had some care of the boy. 
Besides Straghan, the boy was taught by one Paddy, who by 
his way of speaking I took to be a Papist and Irish. He spoke 
this way, " Dampur's woyages, wolume the tird." I heard 
my lord say that Paddy was the son of Joan Landy's sister, 
and Master Jemmy Annesley and this Paddy used to call one 
another cousins. I tnld Mr. Mackercher and the other gentle- 
men that I had heard that the boy was sent from Mrs. Cooper's 
to New Ross by my lord to board there. I told him that I 
had heard he went to a weaver at Waterford. 

Did you not tell the company that Lord Altham had de- 
bauched Miss Gregory ? 

Question objected to ; objection sustained. 

I don't lemember telling the company that Miss Gregory 
used the child very ill, but I believe I did say so. I told 
them that I heard from a servant that one of the reasons Miss 
Gregory would not endure the child in the house was liecause 
she told my Lord Altham that he brought a frog into the house 
which caused her to miscarry. I was told that she used the 
child very badly, but I never saw her give him any ill-usage. 

Did you believe that she ill-used him? — I did not see her 
use him ill at any time, and I believe she did not. 

Did you not tell these gentlemen that she miscarried on 
account of a frog that the boy brought into the house? 

Question objected to ; objection sustained. 

Miss Gregory was never married to my knowledge. I be- 
lieve I told these gentlemen that Miss Gregory's mother had 
a great falling out with my lord, and I said that I had heard 
22S 



Evidence for Defendant. 

that Miss Gregory and my lord were married privately in Arthur Herd 
order to reconcile the mother. I don't remember telling the 
company that Miss Gregory was always called Lady Altham by 
the servants and the family, but I am not sure that I did not 
Bay so. She was not called so by the servants to my know- 
ledge, but I heard afterwards at Ross that she was called so. 
The opinion of everybody about Carrickduff, so far as I heard, 
was that the boy was Joan Landy's natural son by my lord. 
I never conversed with any of the gentlemen. I cannot tell 
how the boys at Carthy's School looked upon this boy, nor 
did I converse with any of the housekeepers in Frapper Lane 
about him except Stapleton and Jane Lynch and another that 
sold drink, and they all knew what we know. I had never 
any conversation with Stapleton or Jane Lynch concerning the 
boy'g being a bastard ; it was so commonly knoA\ii that there 
was no occasion for me to talk with them about it. The 
neighbours used to call the boy Jemmy Landy. I remember 
when my lord came up to me while I was in bed with a cold 
he sent Master Annesley for a horse whip to make me drink 
the mulled wine. 

Had Miss Gregory an influence over my Ijord Altham or not? 
— I believe mv lord would do anything in his power to serve 
Miss Gregory. 

Was she a friend or enemy to this child? — I don't know 
anything, nor did I see anything of ill-usage from her to him. 



Ninth Day, Monday, 2ist November, 1743. 

Henry Brown, examined — I went to Carthy's School in Henry Brown 
Dublin. I remember that one of my school-fellows was called 
Strong. I do not recollect the names of any of my other 
Bchool-fellows, but there was a young man that went under 
the name of Lord Altham's son. He was reputed to be my 
lord's bastard son, but I don't remember any particular name 
that he went by. Last summer I saw a younc: man in Anne 
Street wlio, to the best of my knowledge, was the same person 
as that boy. I am now thirty-three or thirty-four years old, 
and when I was at Carthy's School I would bo about thirteen 
or fourteen years old. Most of the boys tlint went in Carthy's 
School were the sons of low j)eojile, middling men. I do not 
remember seeing Mr. Carthy concct the boy. 

TuoMA.s Sti'.ono, examined — I used to go to Daniel Carthy's T. Strong 
School in Frapper Lane. I remember one Annesley, one of 
my Bchool-fcUowH, perfectly well. Ho was at Carthy's School 

229 



The Aiinesley Case. 



T. Strong for .1 month or more while I was there, and he was reputed 
to be Lord Altham's bastard son. To the best of my know- 
ledge the boys called him Jemmy Annesley. Most of the 
boys at that school were tradesmen's children barring him. I 
remember one Henry Brown, who was at school at the same 
time as I was. I cannot say that I have seen him within the 
last two years. 

Cross-examined — I never heard the boys call Annesley 
"lord." I remember that Brown said that the boy was my 
lord's bastard. All the other schoolboys said the same, but 
I cannot name any one of them in particular that said so. 
There was never, to my knowledge, a lord's real sori at that 
school. I did not know Mr. Byrne, the brewer, while I was 
at school, but I have known him since. I knew Patrick 
Plunket, who is a verj- honest man ; he lived in the yard where 
the school was kept. I never heard from him that this was 
a bastard son of my lord's. We did not converse together, as 
he was a young man at that time and I was a small boy. He 
would know Lord Altham going backwards and forwards. I 
do not believe that Plunket would say a thing upon his oath 
that was not true. 

T. Barret Thomas Barhet, examined — In the year 1724 I knew a boy at 
Ross who went under the name of James Landy. I never 
heard him called bj^ the name of James Annesley. I saw him 
within the last twelve months at Ross ; he then went by the 
name of James Annesley. He stayed when he was a boy in 
my brother's house for about four months, and with me for 
eight or nine weeks, and he was reputed to be the son of Lord 
Altham by one Joan Landy. From what I could learn ho 
had nobody to take care of him, and he came to Ross because 
the town belonged to his supposed father. The boy came from 
Cairickduff to Ross when my lord went to live at Island 
Bridge, and, as near as I can remember, that would be in the 
year 1724. One Mr. Wellman desired my brother to take in 
the boy, saying that my lord would one time or another make 
reparation. I have lived in Ross all my life. I remember 
seeiner the boy there before he came into my hands. He was 
there with his mother. He was about five years old when he 
lived with his mothei- at Ross, and he would be there for at 
least two or three months. He lived with his mother, 
Joan Landy, till she married a second husband, and this 
husband would not allow the boy to continue in the house. I 
believe this would l)e about five years before I took the boy, 
because I remember he was eleven years old when he came to me. 
While his mother was at Ross she married one MacCormack. 
I heard that after he left his mother he came to Dublin. His 
mother never came to my house while he was with me. When 
230 



Evidence for Defendant. 

the boy was with his mother at Ross we used to call him Jemmy t. Barret 
Altham and sometimes Jemmy Landy. I never knew the 
child before his mother brought him to Ross. At CarrickdufE 
and at Ross he was reputed to be the son of Joan Landy by 
Lord Altham. I cannot tell where he spent his time between 
the first and second time I saw him at Ross. I saw Mr. 
James Annesley in Ross about a year ago, but I did not have 
any conversation with him. I knew him very well to be the 
same person as the one I had known at Carrickduff. I recog- 
nised him out of twelve or fourteen gentlemen who were riding 
into town. That was the first time I had seen him for these 
many years. 

Cross-examined — Joan Landy lived in Ross before she was 
married to MacCormack, and she continued to live there till 
three years ago. I cannot tell how old the child was before she 
married, nor can I tell bow long she was in Ross before she 
married. It was common talk that the boy was Joan Landy 's 
son. To the best of my knowledge the boy would be nine 
or ten years old when I saw him at Carrickduff. When he 
came to me at Ross I heard that Lord Altham was living at a 
place called Island Bridge. While he was living at Ross with 
his mother he seemed to be dressed in a sort of gown. I 
could not say that he then wore a coat and breeches. I did 
not notice whether he had the smallpox while he was staying 
with his mother, and when he was with me I saw no signs of 
his having had the smallpox. I cannot say how long Joan 
Landy had been living jn Ross at that time. 

William Napper, examined — 1 have Jived in the town of Ross w. Napper 
for about fifty year.s, except for about a year and a half. One 
Thomas Barret showed me a boy there and told me that he 
was a bastard son of Lord Altham by Joan Landy. I never 
saw him after that till about a year ago. I don't know that 
he would be the same person. I never heard that Lord and 
Lady Altham had a son at Dunmaine, and I never heard other- 
wise but that this boy was my lord's bastard son by Joan 
Landy. I was very well acquainted with Lord Altham, but 
not with my lady, although I have seen her a hundred times. 
I never heard it said that my lady had ever had a child at 
Dunmaino or in Ireland. I was very well acquainted with the 
late Ixird Anglcsca, and used to visit him very often. If Lord 
Altham had had a son I would certainly have told him about 
it. I.rf^rd Anglesea had some suspicion of some English affair, 
but thfro was never tlie least suspioion of thoir having a child 
in Ir<^'land. I am man'ied to a iiioce of Councillor Annesley 
in England. Aithur, the late Earl of Anglosoa, camo into 
possesNinn of the Altliam estato immediately upon the death 
of the late liOrH .Mtliain, and hn onjnyod it dniing his life, for 

23' 



The Anncsley Case. 



W. Napper t^n years or thereabouts. I had a letter of attorney from 
the liit*i Lord An<^lesea to take possession of the Ross estate, 
and I gave minutes of it to the tenants. There was not one 
of the tenants of Ross ever made any objection on account of 
my Lord Altham's ever having had a son. If my lord had a 
son by his lady it could have been no secret, and I am sure 
we would have had bonfires, and the town would have been 
all in joy. It would have been known and talked of by the 
whole county — nay, I believe the whole kingdom, and all 
England would have heard of it. Lord Altham was reputed 
to have had a bastard son by Joan Landy. 

Cross-examined — Had you any other knowledge of that boy 
that you saw at Ross but the information of Thomas Barret ? — 
No more than what I heard from the whole town. All I know 
of the boy was by reputation. He lived in Thomas and Frank 
Barret's houses. I am not agent for Lord Anglesea in Ross. I 
know that Lord Anglesea and Lord Altham never had a good 
understanding from the time my Lord Altham took to his lady 
again. I don't know whether I knew Earl Arthur at that time 
or not, but I have heard him say that he was angry with my 
Lord Altham then. I remember the separation between Lord 
and Lady Altham. I don't know that the Earl of Anglesea 
and the late Lord Altham were reconciled upon that separation. 

G, Brehou Georgb Brehon, examined — I have been concerned as agent 
for Lord Anglesea in this cause, and I hope my testimony will 
not be injured by that. I do not apprehend I shall either gain 
or lose by the success of this cause, because as agent for the 
defender I believe I shall get the same if it does not succeed 
as if it succeeded. I was twenty-eight years old last April. 
I believe I know Mr. James Annesley. The first place I saw 
him in was Ross, when he and I were playfellows, about the 
year 1724. He then went by the name of Jemmy Altham. 
When I first saw him he was in a very miserable condition, 
almost naked. Hearing that he was ray Lord Altham's son 
my compassion was raised, and I took an opportunity of giving 
him some assistance, and I frequently gave him bread and other 
things. I also took him to my father's stable, so that he could 
lie in the hayloft. He also stayed with Barret, but I could 
not say how long. In November last I heard that this Mr. 
Annesley was coming to Ross, and I waited a day or two to 
see him. When I saw him arrive I said to one Mr. Millbank 
that if it was possible for one to judge of a person at that 
length of time I believed that he was the same person. I 
knew him by his nose — he had a high nose. I have seen him 
several times since, and as his face grows more familiar I 
believe that he is the same as I used to know at Ross. He 
232 



Evidence for Defendant. 

was reputed to be my Lord Altham's natural son by one Joan g. Brehon 
Landy, who sold bread in the town of Ross. 

Cross-examined — When I knew Jemmy Altham in Ross I 
was about ten or eleven years old. I think he would be some- 
what older, because he was bigger than I was. I continued to 
go to school a good while after I saw the boy at Ross. I 
cannot tell how long I knew the boy, whether three months or 
twelve months. My father left his house about Christmas, 
1727. To the best of my knowledge, I saw Joan Landy at 
Ross while the boy was there. I myself took the boy into my 
father's hayloft. I don't know whether Joan Landy had a 
house or not at that time, but I know she was in town, because 
the boys used to say when we met her that that was the mother 
of Jemmy Altham. I cannot tell how long she had lived in 
Ross before that time. I am certain it was not five years before 
1727 that I saw the boy, because I could not remember so far 
back. After lie got into Francis Barret's house he was better 
provided for than he was when I saw him first. The first 
school I went to was Mr. Cullen's, and then I went to Mr. 
Pigot's school when I was about eight or nine years old. I 
stayed there for four or five years, and then I went to Buckley's 
writing school. I cannot tell how long I continued at that 
school. I then went back to Mr. Pigot's. It was when I was 
at Mr. Pigot's school the first time that I knew this boy. I 
cannot tell whether he went to Thomas Barret's house or not. 
I believe the boy came to lie in my hayloft rather than go to 
his mother, because she had not the wherewithal to support 
him. I don't know whether she was married or single at that 
time. I never knew one Edward Lutwich, of Ross, a trooper. 

Elizabeth MacMullen, examined — I knew my Lady Altham B, MacMuUen 
iibout three-quarters of a year after she first came to Dunmaine. 
1 was living at Ross at that time, and I visited her once at 
Dunmaine. After she left I saw her at Captain Butler's house 
in Ross. To the best of my knowledge, she stayed in Ross for 
between three and four j'cars, and for about two years I would 
visit her twice a week, I believe. She went from Ross to 
Charles Cavanagh's house in Stable Lane, Dublin, and she 
stayed there for alx>ut a year. While she was there I seldom 
missed a week without seeing her. I left Ross in 1719, and 
came to Dublin, and settled in Bridge Street, where my 
husband kept a shop before I married him. I cannot remember 
how long my lady continued at Ross after I left, nor can I 
recollect when she came to Mr. Cavanagh's house. After 
leaving his liouse she went to Alderman King's house, where 
she stayed for about a year. She was ill in tliat house, and 
was attended by Dr. Irwin, and at tliat time I was there every 

233 



The Anneslcy Case. 



I. MacMullon night. She then c.imo to lodge with me in Mountrath Street, 
and stayed with mo for eight or nine weeks. I have heard 
her say several times that she wished she had a child. She gave 
me no reason why she wished to have a child. I never heard it 
said that my lady had ever had a child, male or female. The 
general reputation was that slie had never had a child by my 
Lord Altham while she was in Ireland. I never saw any child 
with my lady while she was at Ross or Dunmaine. After staying 
with me for eight or nine weeks she left for England. Mrs. 
Heath, her woman, and I put her on board ship. A night or 
two before she left she asked me to let her know in case my 
Lord Altham should die, and I promised that I would write 
Mrs. Heath. I kept my promise, and sent over an account of 
the manner in which he was buried. I watched the funeral, and 
I saw a boy crying out " Oh, my father, my father." I asked 
the boy who he was and who his mother was. He told me 
that his mother was Joan Landy. When I wrote to Mrs. 
Heath I told her that Joan Landy 's son, Weedon, the coach- 
man, and his wife were the only weepers there. While my Lord 
and Lady Altham were at Dunmaine I was told by one Mr. 
Taylor and one George Sutton that the general reputation was 
that Joan Landy had a son there by my Lord Altham, but 
whether that was the case or not I cannot tell. When I saw 
the boy at the funeral I paid no great attention to his dress, 
but he appeare<l to me like the other blackguard boys of the 
crowd. I don't know that I have seen that boy since. 

Cross-examined — I lived in Ross with my father, who kept 
a very great inn there. My Lord and Lady Altham used to 
dine there before the separation. I never saw my lord* bring 
a young gentleman in the chariot to the house. I was twenty 
years old when my Lord and Lady Altham came to Ross. I 
believe they lived about two years at Dunmaine. I know that 
after the separation my lady came to Ross on a Sunday night 
when it was late and dark. 

Was my lady reckoned a proud woman in her temper or 
otherwise? — She was reckoned a very high woman. I became 
intimate with her immediately she came to Ross. I knew her 
because she and my lord often used to come to our house before 
that time and dine with my father, Israel Boucher. I never 
used to draw the ale, but if I did it is what my betters have 
done. It is not the case that my father just kept a common 
alehouse. His inn was just by the Cross, up towards the hill. 
It is not the case that I acted as a servant to my father and 
made the beds. 

You were kept up like a gentlewoman 1 — Yes, as a great many 
more are. I left Ross in the year 1719, about two months after 
I was married, which was on 19th January. I lived in Bride 

234 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Street, Dublin, for two years, and then we moved to Tash's E. MacMulIew 
Square. I cannot tell what year it was that Lady Altham came 
to Dublin, nor can I tell how long she was in town before she 
came to live with me. I do not know one Margaret Hodgers 
in Dublin, and I cannot tell whether my husband was acquainted 
with her. I heard that there were lodgings taken there for my 
lady, but I did not know^ who took them. When my lady came 
to town she was very ill, and could only walk with her woman 
holding her by the hand. She never told me that her disorder 
was got by a cold that she caught when lying in at Dunmaine. 
I have heard that women frequently catch cold and lose their 
limbs by lying in, but I never heard that she did. I never asked 
her when this disorder first came on her. I cannot tell how 
she was in regard to her limbs when I visited her two or three 
days after she came to Ross. I saw her walk indifferently, and 
she said that her limbs were very bad. She sat most of the 
time I saw her, and she went to church in a chair. I never 
asked her or Mrs. Heath how it was that her limbs were dis- 
ordered. I took it that her disorder came from grief, because 
she was crying for several weeks after she came to Ross. I 
never knew one Mr. Lutwich. I never took notice of my lady's 
shoes, nor do I know who was her shoemaker, unless it was Mr. 
Allan, who was the best shoemaker there. I cannot tell in 
what state of health my lord was when my lady went to 
England. I promised that I would write to her maid instead 
of to herself, because she was sickly. My lord died in the year 
1727, and I knew of his death before his funeral, because I 
heard it cried out in the news. I watclicd tlie funeral from 
tlie corner of Christ Church Lane, and I followed the corpse 
into church. He was buried about ten o'clock in the vault 
at the right hand going in. I saw but one clergyman. I did 
not sec the choir attend the funeral, nor Mr. Hawkins, the 
late King-at-Arms. I do not recollect now who were the bearers. 
When I spoke to the boy he was standing near the opening of the 
vault. I was surprised to hear him call himself my lord's son, 
and I asked him who his mother was. I spoke to a great many 
about this briy's crying. I never mentioned the story till about 
a year or two ago. when it came into my mind. My husband is 
doatl. I think the boy I saw at the funeral wore his own hair, 
but I cannot tell what colour it was, nor did I observe his 
clothes. I never ho.ud that Lady Altham miscarried when she 
was at Dunmaine. I know Mrs. Lennox, the banker's wife, in 
this town. It is not the case that I ever said to her that Lady 
Altham miscarrie<l when at Dunmaine. I think I was lodging 
at Mr. Smith's when Lady Altham came to town, and after that 
I lived with tlie Honourable the Lord Mount joy. I now live in 
service with Mrs. Loigli, of the county of Wexford. 

23s 



The Annesley Case. 



B. MaeMullen You mentioned something about never hearing of my lady's 
having a cliiUl in Irehmd. Did you ever hear of her having 
:i chiki anywheie else? — No more than a Hying report that 
she had one in England or somewhere. I never had a con- 
versation with James Keilly as to my Lady Altham having had a 
child. It is not the case that I said to Keiliy or his wife that 
the present plaintiff had the right to this honour and estate. 

M. Derenzay Matthbw Derenzat. 

[Counsel for the plaintiff objected to this witness that he was 
consequentially interested in tlie fate of this cause, as he might 
lose his agency or receivership. 

The Court stated their opinion that this did not go to his 
competency but might go to his credit.] 

Examined — I knew the late Lord Altham very well from 
the time he lived at Carrickduff till his death. I never heard 
him say anything concerning a child of his. I saw a boy 
clothed in red while my loid lived at Carrickduff, but I never 
had any discourse with his lordship in relation to that boy. I 
never heard that Lord Altham had issue by my lady. I cannot 
say that I had a very great intimacy with my lord at Carrick- 
duff, but I have dined with him. No boy ever dined there 
while I was there. 

J. Medlieott Dr. Jamks Medlicott, examined — I knev.- the late Lord Alt- 
ham when he was living at Kinnea. I sometimes dined with 
him at his house and at other gentlemen's houses in the country, 
particularly at Mr. John Annesley's, at Ballysax. I remember 
hearing Lord Altham .say at one of these houses that he had 
reason to expect that some time or other he would be Lord 
Anglesea, but that when he .should happen to die he did not 
know what would become of that fortune, adding, " As I have 
no son of my own, nor know naught if I ever shall, I don't 
care if the devil has it or what becomes of it." I cannot tell 
when it was that my lord said this, but it was when he was 
living at Kinnea. I don't know that I ever heard from my 
lord anything relating to Mr. Charles Annesley. I do not 
know whether there was any child with my lord at Kinnea. 

Cross-examined — I cannot recollect where this discourse hap- 
pened, nor can I remember who was in the company at the time. 
I do not think I should have recollected anything if that par- 
ticular expression had not struck me. I forgot about it till 
this dispute arose, and then the thing came back to my mind 
again. I did not know the present Earl of Anglesea till he 
became Lord Anglesea. 
236 



Evidence for Defendant. 

Colonel William Bbcket, examined — I was first acquainted W. Beeket 
with the late Lord Altham somewhere in Essex Street, about 
eighteen or twenty years ago. I afterwards saw him at Inchi- 
core. There used to be some little bickering between my lord 
and his brother, Captain Annesley. One day there was a 
quarrel between them, and I heard him afterwards say that he 
wished his natural son was a legitimate son, so that he might 
cut his scoundrel brother out of the Anglesea estate. It was 
always reputed in the country that he had a natural son and 
no other. 

Cross-examined — After I got to know Lord Altham at Essex 
Street our acquaintance was never broken off. I am sure 
there was never a whole year together that I did not see him. 
I believe there was not more than a year's time between his 
living at Mrs. Vice's house in Essex Street and his going to 
Inchicore. At the time my Lord Altham mentioned that he 
wished he had a son so that he could cut his brother out of the 
estate, my son, Cavanagh, a dancing master, and several gentle- 
men about the country were present. The conversation took 
place in the parlour at night, before supper. My son and I 
stayed till three o'clock the next morning. We had dancing 
that night, but I do not recollect what ladies were there except 
Miss Gregory, who was a relation of my Lord Altham's. 

Was this declaration of my lord's made after you had drank 
pretty heartily? — No; it was not. Miss Gregory was not 
present. 

Wentworth IIar\l,vn. examined — I was very well acquainted W. Harman 
with the late Lord Altham from the year 1713 or 1714. 1 
knew him when he lived at Kinnea. I believe I was as inti- 
mately acquainted with him as with any man in the world. T 
heard he had a child at Kinnea, but I never saw one there. I 
often heard him lament greatly that he had not a child by his 
wife, and that it was a great detriment that he had not. T 
have often heard him speak of a bastard child which he said 
he did not know whether it was his, his brother's, or his foot- 
man's. I asked him why he did not get a child by his wife, 
and he said that she was not capable of bearing a child, and 
that he therefore hated her. I frequently saw him after this 
conversation, and I believe he never lived with his wife after- 
wards. 

Cross-examined — I was first acquainted with Lord Altham 
in the year 1714 or 1715. I believe I got to know him 
immcdiatelv after he came to Ireland. I never saw my Lord 
Altham with his lady in Dublin, nor do I know where Lord Alt- 
ham lived at the time of tlio Queen's death. I often saw Lord 
Alth.im ;it Inchirorc, ami liad discourse witli liim there conccrn- 

237 



The Annesley Case. 



W. Harman ing Lis son. I applied to my lord to give the boj clothes, 
but I do not remember whether that was at Kinnea or where 
it was. I believe it was after the Queen's death. I never 
4>aw Lady Altham. I only heard lately that my lord was 
separated from his wife on account of one Mr. Palliser. 

C. Stone Christopher Stone, examined — I know John Purcell the 
butcher. His son is a tenant of mine. Purcell eaid that 
some considerable time ago he happened to be in Smithfield 
and saw a young man riding a horse there with a thumb rope 
about his middle, and he was told that this boy was the son 
of Lord Altham. He took the boy home with him, and one 
day Mr. Annesley, the present Earl of Anglesea, came to his 
house and asked if there was one Jemmy there, and he told 
him that he was in the house, but that he was not fit to be 
seen, as he was just out of the smallpox. Mr. Annesley eaid 
that he would speak to his brother to acknowledge his civilities, 
and said to him that he should take the boy as an apprentice, 
but Mr. Purcell said that he would not take him as an appren- 
tice, because he hoped he was born to better fortune. 

Cross-examined — I believe that Purcell is an honest man. 

Hannah Shaw Mrs. Hannah Shaw, examined — I know one Catharine 
MacCormick, who papered a little room for me between Sep- 
tember and October. She said there were some people who 
had asked her whether Lady Altham ever had a child or not, 
and she told them that she never was with child or had a 
child, and that if she was called to give evidence she should 
give it against them. I am positive she said to me that she 
had told them that my lady never was with child, and bade them 
not to call her as a witness because she would be against them. 
Cross-examined — She said that she told them that she 
believed my lady never had a child at Mrs. Vice's or anywhere 
else. 

Evidence for Defendant closed. 



238 



Further Evidence for the Plaintiff. 

C^SAR CoLCLOUGH, examined — I was present at the trial of c. Coleloueh 
Mr. Masterton at Wexford. He was a very near relation and 
particular friend of mine, and I went to his trial to see that, 
as far as in me lay, justice should be done to him. The trial 
took place at the spring assizes, in the year 1715. I do not 
believe that Lady Altham was in Court, and I further believe 
she was not in the town that day. I do not remember to have 
seen any woman of fashion at that trial. I do not think that 
Lady Altham could have attended that trial and sat near me 
without my recollecting her now. I do not believe that Mrs. 
Gififard sat near me at the trial. I do not recollect her being 
present. If I had seen her and Lady Altham there I would 
have known them. While I was in Court I was taking care 
of Mr. Masterton, and I should not at that time have sat by 
the fairest lady in Christendom. Mr. Doyle was not tried at 
that assizes. I am certain that if there had been any ladies 
of distinction in the town that day I should have heard of it. I 
heard that Lady Altham was in Wexford in the year 1716, 
when Doyle was tried for drinking treasonable healths. 

Cross-examined — Mr. Masterton and Mr. Walsh were tried 
together. They were uncle and nephew. It is usual for some 
ladies from the neighbourhood to go to the assizes, and they 
call them " assizes ladies " because they commonly go there. 
I do not think it is usual for ladies of fashion to go. I knew 
Mrs. Giffard, V>ut I do not know whether I should know her if 
I saw her now. I was never well acquainted with her. I knew 
her husband a little ; he was a justice of the peace, and reckoned 
a poor man. I cannot say whether Mrs. Giffard is a woman 
of veracity as I had but a small acquaintance with her. The 
family is reduced and very poor. Their circumstances are 
altered, and so may their honesty be for aught I know. 

John IIusset, examined — I know Mrs. Heath. About two joh i Hussey 
years ago I went witli a gentlewoman to Mrs. Heath to drink 
tea in Holborn. As Mr. Anncsley was the common subject 
of conversation in the coffee-houses then, we began to talk 
about him. I do not know wljether she or I introduced the 
subject, but, to the best of my memory, she said, " Nobody 
knows that young man's affairs bettor than I, because I long 
lived with his mother, the I^ady Altham," and she expressed 
a great deal of concern for him and the circumstances he was 

239 



The Annesley Case. 



John Husscy in. She also told me tluit the Duchess of Buckingham had 
eent for her three times;, but I do not remember that she told 
me the import of the conversation she had with the Duchess of 
Buckingham. To the best of my remembrance she said that 
the Duchess had sent for her concerning Mr. Annesley. I 
am quite sure that Mrs. Heath said that the young gentleman 
was very much injured, and that nobody knew better than 
she, because she had lived long with the Lady Altham, his 
mother. She said that she believed she should come to Ire- 
land, but I do not remember that she said that she expected 
anything. 

Cross-examined — I came to Ireland in the end of last July, 
and I live at a place called Plainstown, about 14 miles from 
Dublin. I have seen Mrs. Heath several times. To the best of 
my recollection, my acquaintance with her began about five 
years ago. I mentioned the conversation at my sister's house 
in Smithfield, and also at my own house in the country. I 
have spoken of it a hundred times in London, when there was a 
conversation about it in the coffee-houses. I told a gentleman — 
I forget his name — to tell Mr. Annesley's people about it. T 
saw Mr. Mackerclier at the Globe Coffee-house about a twelve- 
month ago, but I never spoke to him or any of the agents till 
Friday last. I was in Ireland last year — I came to Ireland a 
twelvemonth ago. Before that I lodged in Orange Street near 
St. James's, in London. I dealt in hollands, cambrics, and 
other such goods, and I used to wait on His Majesty to Hanover. 
I was steward in one of the yachts. I only once heard Mrs 
Heath make the declaration that I have mentioned. There 
were present Mrs. Simpson, a daughter of Mrs. Heath's, and 
a young gentleman that lodged up one pair of stairs in Mrs. 
Heath's house. I had visited Mrs. Heath before this. I was 
first introduced to her by Mrs. Simpson. I never heard Mrs. 
Heath say that Lady Altham never had a son, but she told 
me she believed she was to go to Ireland to be a witness for 
Lord Anglesea, and then she differed very much in her way of 
thinking about Mr. Annesley from what she did last summer. I 
had no conversation with her that time touching the evidence 
she was to give on the part of Lord Anglesea, but when she 
said she believed she was to go to Ireland I said, " Surely if you 
go you mu.st be well paid for your time." I thought she had 
changed in her opinion, because at our last conversation she 
seemed to be very strenuous for Lord Anglesea, while two and 
a half years ago she had expressed great concern for the young 
gentleman. I am quite certain that when Mrs. Heath said that 
nobody knew the affair better than she, she used the words, 
" Lady Altham, his mother." I have never followed the trade 
of tailor. When I held an employment under the Crown it was 
240 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

only when the King went abroad. I was employed by the John Hussey 
Board of Green Cloth, but it was merely to be aboard the yacht, 
and I was never sworn. I am a Catholic. I heard some people 
say that Mrs. Heath made the use of the name of Mr. Hussey 
in her evidence. 

Mrs. Mary Heath, recalled — I know that gentleman (pointing Mary Heath 
to John Hussey), and have seen him several times. He drank 
tea with me several times after the report came concerning Mr. 
Annesley, and we had a number of conversations about it. I 
said what a vile thing it was to take away the earl's right, 
that my lady never was with child. I can say no more even 
if you rack me to death. I have known Mr. Hussey for three 
years or more. I can say nothing of his character, except that 
some said he was a gentleman's servant, and some said he 
lived by gaming. If he says that I said that my lady had a 
child, then I cannot say that he is an honest man. I never 
said that nobody knew that young man's affairs better than 
I did. 

Did you ever in Mr. Hussey's presence give it as a reason 
why you should know the young man's affairs, that you had 
long lived with Lady Altham, his mother? — No, I never did; 
and if I was to be torn to pieces I would say no such thing. 

To Mr. Hussey — Repeat the words you heard her say? — ^Mrs. 
Heath said to me, " Poor gentleman, I am sorry for him from 
my heart, for no one has reason to know his affairs better than 
I do, for I lived long with my Lady AJtham, his mother." 

Mrs. Heath — By all that is good and great I never said any 
such words. I never thought that you were such a man. I 
have heard people say that you were a gamester and lived in 
an odd way, but I would never believe it till now; I always took 
your part and said that you always behaved like a gentleman. 

Mr. Hussey — I am a gentleman, and I can bring several 
people to justify me to be a gentleman and a man of family. 
Indeed, I have heard you say it. 

To Mrs. Heath — Do you remember the time that Lady 
Altham went to Wexford Assizes? — Yes, I remember my lady 
came home and told me how handsomely Mr. Walsh pleaded for 
himself. I don't know what day of the week it was that we 
went to the assizes. Lady Altliam never lodged more than 
twice at Mrs. Vice's house. I do not know Mr. Higginson that 
was receiver to Arthur Earl of Anglesea. 

John Hussey, cross-examination continued — I did not know John Hussey 
before last Thursday that I was to be a witness in this cause. 
Had I not been subpctuaed I would not have come. I did 
K 341 



The Annesley Case. 



John Hussey not ask Mrs. Heath why she had changed her mind about 
the young in;ui. I thought slie had changed her mind, because 
the tirst time she said she was so much concerned for the young 
gentleman, and the second time she said she was to be a witness 
for my Lord Anglesea, from which I understood she was going 
to give evidence for my lord. 

Why did you not expostulate with her then? — Why, it was 
no afi'air of mine. 

Did she say she was coming over to be a witness in the trial 
of Lord Anglesea? — I believe she did say so. 

If you think she said so, how could you gather that she had 
changed her mind ? — Because of her naming the words " Lord 
Anglesea." I did not know but it might be in his favour. 1 
could not say whether what she told me in the first conversation 
was truth or not, because the thing was indifferent to me. I 
cannot say whether I recollected at the second conversation 
what had passed at the first, but I recollected it after I heard 
that there was to be a trial. I remember the precise words 
of the convei'sation, because I have spoken of them frcnn time 
to time, and have refreshed my memory. 

T. Higginson Thomas Higginso?!, examined — I knew the late Lord and 
Lady Altham. I was receiver of the late Earl of Anglesea's 
rents in the county of Wexford from 1711 till 1716. I went 
to Dunmaine on Tuesday after Easter Sunday in 1716, and 
met there John Weedon, the coachman's wife, and another young 
woman — I do not remember whether they called her Nanny or 
Molly. They told me that my lord was abroad, and I was 
turning to go away when my lady came down and bade the 
young woman give me a glass of wine, and after I had finished 
that she gave me another glass. She was big-bellied, and her 
face was a little lank. At the second glass I wished her a 
happy delivery. I then went to Major Rogers at Enniscorthy. 
The spring assizes at Wexford in the year 1715 were held on 
Saturday, 16th April. I went to Wexford on the Thursday 
morning, and I paid some money to my Lord Altham there. 
I did not have any conversation with Lord Altham concerning 
my lady. I did not go into the Court. I was in the big inn 
along with my lord, and we had a pint of wine. I do not 
know whether my lady was in town or not. I rather think I 
saw Mr. Colclough at the time of the trial. I heard after I 
returned home that Mr. Masterton and Mr. Walsh had been 
tried. I can be particular as to the time I went to Dunmaine, 
because I entered all the money I received into my Lord 
Anglesea's book when I went home. I received (and entered in 
my book) £4 from Mr. Houghton the day before I went to 
Dunmaine, £10 from Mr. Giffard on Thursday, and £20 from 
242 



Evidence for Plaintiff, 

Colonel Sutton on Monday. I looked over my book on Sunday t. Higginson 
a week ago. I handed to Lord Altham £28 which I received on 
the Wednesday in the Easter week from my son, who had 
collected it from the tenants. 

Cross-examined — I went to Dunmaine first on the Tuesday, 
and then to Enniscorthy. I had really very little business at 
Dunmaine. I only wished to tell my lord that I expected my 
son home on Wednesday with the money. I did not very often 
see Lady Altham before the separation, but after that I saw her 
at Koss frequently. I had seen her at Koss church before I 
saw her at Dunmaine on the Easter Tuesday I have spoken to. 
Arthur Earl of Anglesea always said that he was heir to his 
cousin Altham, and my lord said the same of him. The Ross 
people in June or July, 1715, were saying to my Lord Anglesea 
that Lord Altham had got a son, and were wishing that my 
Lord Anglesea had got a son too, to which my Lord Anglesea 
said that there were no hopes of that. I believe Lord Anglesea 
had a wife at the time the Koss people said that to him. I 
have always believed William Napper to be a good man. 

Nicholas Loftus, recalled — I have known Mrs. Gififard, the N. Loftus 
widow of Ravenscroft Giffard, for a great many years. I 
believe she is a woman to be believed upon her oath. I only 
know Mr. Higginson by sight. I do not know William Elms. 
I have never seen Mrs. Lambert, but I don't know what stress 
is to be laid upon the testimony of a woman that lives with 
another man while her husband is alive. 



Tenth Day, Tuesday, 22nd November, 1743. 

WiLLiAu Stephens, examined — I know Arthur Herd. When w. Stephens 
Mr. Annesley first came to Enniscorthy there were a number of 
people with him. I asked Arthur Herd what strangers they 
wore, and he told me that they were the young lord and hia 
friends, " He that is putting in for the Earl of Anglesea's 
estate." I asked if this was the right heir, and he said, 
" He is the right heir, if right would take place." That 
conversation took place in the street facing Arthur Herd's 
own house. 

Cross-examined — Tlicre was no one present but ourselves. I 
have known Arthur Herd for five years, and I have never heard 
him to be anything but an honest man. I think he is to be 
believed upon his oath. I told Bartholomew Furlong that 
Artliur Herd had said to me that Mr. Annesley, if right would 
take place, was the right heir. I told liini tliat because I 

243 



The Annesley Case. 



W. Stephens Leaid thut Arthur Herd was a very material witness. Furlong 
dill not t^^U me that he knew anythinj:; about the matter ; I did 
not ask him what he was going to do. I don't know for 
whom Arthur Herd gave evidence. I was served with a 
subpoena on Sunday last by one O'Neill, who came with me 
to town. I had no discourse with him concerning the testi- 
mony I was to give. He did not toll mo what evidence Herd 
had given in Court. He did not say that I was to give evi- 
dence against Herd. I have got nothing but a shilling that 
was left with the subpoena, and I have been promised nothing 
for coming to town. I cannot say who hired the horse on which 
I rode to town. I have no trade. I don't say that I am 
a gentleman or a farmer. I keep an alehouse. 

w. Houcrhton WiLLiAM HouGHTON, examined — I have known Arthur Herd 
very well lor the last fifteen or sixteen years. I went into 
his shop two months ago to get a wig made. We happened 
to have a little talk about the Earl of Anglesea, and Mr. Herd 
told me that Mr. Annesley was the true, lawful born eon, as 
he thought in his conscience, and that he was the true heir to 
this estate that the Earl of Anglesea possesses. He told me 
that he knew him from a child. 

Did he name any place where he knew him? — He knew him 
at Dunmaine, and at Ross, and several other places, and 
so did I, for I made the first stays that ever he put upon his 
back . 

Cross-examined — Mr. Herd said that he believed Mr. Annesley 
to be the true heir, and he said that he knew him at Dun- 
maine and Ross. I am quite sure that he said that he knew 
him at these two places. I am fifty-three years old, and I 
have lived in Enniscorthy for the last tiiirty years. A letter 
came to Mrs. Synnot giving an account of this trial. She 
showed me the letter. There was a great deal in it relating 
to Herd's swearing that the plaintiff was my late Lord Altham's 
bastard son by one Landy. I told her that I had heard 
Arthur Herd express himself that Mr. James Annesley was 
the lawful heir. My conscience pricked me, and I resolved 
to come to town to do Mr. Annesley all the justice that lay 
in my power from what I had heard Arthur Herd say. 

John Ryan JoHN Ryan, examined — I know Father Michael Downes very 
well. He told me that my Lord Altham in his house once 
desired a child which was along with him to get up. and said, 
" Rise up, you bastard, and salute the man that made a 
Christian of you," " and," says Downes, " I'll swear to that, 
and banish this man, and I am to get £200 for it." This 
conversation took place on a Sunday in the summer or harvest 
244 



Evidence for Plaindfi. 

of last year. I said to him that I supposed his memory was John Ryan 
old, and that he could not swear those things, but he said 
that he would apply to a gentleman for a remedy, and if that 
gentleman would not give him a remedy another would. He 
said to me that if he did err he expected to get an absolution 
for it. I was doubtful of his memory, and that was all. I 
suppose he was to get absolution if he swore to a thing that 
he did not remember. I do not know whether he applied to 
anybody for an absolution. 

Did he say he w-ould apply after the trial was over? — He 
spoke of no trial to me on that occasion. 

Cross-examined — It was at his own house that Father Downes 
said he was to get £200. 

Are you his confessor? — It was no confession. It was dis- 
course that he had with me. I am a Roman Catholic. 

Did you follow any business, or are you of any profession? 

The Court — You need not answer that question if you think 
it will criminate yourself. 

The WiTKESs — I refuse to answer that question. 

Cross-examination continued — I went to Downes's house be- 
cause I wanted to see him. I had an occasion with him. 

Did you understand he was going to swear to a falsehood, 
and was to be paid for it? — I don't know whether he was going 
to swear a lie or not. 

But what did you understand? — Upon my word I was afraid 
there might be a corruption. When he said he was to 
receive £200 I did not understand what he meant, but I was 
afraid that there was some corruption. 

What do you mean by corruption? — I mean when a man 
receives a bribe or a fee to swear false. Father Downes has 
the reputation of being a loose man in his tongue, a man that 
can keep no secret, but will divulge everything that he knows. 
I am not positive whether he would say what was false upon his 
oath for profit — I don't know whether he would do so for £200. 

According to your Church, can a man that declares before- 
hand that he intends to commit a premeditated perjun- be 
absolved? — No, a priest won't give him absolution. No priest 
will absolve a man that says, " I'll swear a false oath and 
desire absolution for it." 

Will a priest absolve him after he has committed perjury? 
— He would, with repentance, to be sure. 

MrcHAEL DowNE."?, recalled — I saw John Ryan last Raster, m, Oownet 
but not Binco then. I had no conversation to my knowledge 
with him relating to what I would disclose upon this trial. 

John Htan — Father Downes certainly had a conversation 
with me on a Sunday morning in the summer or harvest of 
last year. T ro<le as far as Tyntem with him. 

24S 



The Anncsley Case. 



John Ryan MiciiAKL DowNKS — I did uot rido with John Ryan on a 
M. Downes Sunday. 

JoTHJ Ryan — I rode along with you to the place where you 
used to say mass, and mass was not had there because a woman 
was dead in the place, and so we rode on to Tyntem. 

Fathbr Downes — If that was the time I believe I was with 
you. 

To MiCH.\EL DoWxVES — Upon your oath, had you any conversa- 
tion with Ryan relating to this trial? — Upon my oath, I had 
not. It was none of my business to be talking about it on 
Sunday morning. 

By the Court — Ryan tells ua that Lord Altham said in your 
presence, " Rise up, you bastard, and make a bow to the man 
that made you a Christian," and you told Ryan that you 
would swear to these words and banish the man (meaning the 
plaintifiF), for which you were to have £200?— Well, then, I'll 
tell you, by the virtue of my oath, I have been familiar with 
Lord Altham, and I was never promised a farthing from my 
lord; and if you believe this gentleman you may hang me, 
for he is a vile, drunken dog. I do not remember that man 
saying anything about my being old and that my memory 
was weak. I never said anything to Ryan about his procuring 
my absolution, ror had I ever any such conversation with hia 
to that or the like efifect. 

You have given your negative answer to the whole conversa- 
tion. It is possible that you may truly swear now that that 
exact precise conversation did not pass, but did any conversa- 
tion to that effect pass? — I can swear positively that I had no 
conversation of that kind with him at all. 

Can you in your Church give absolution for a wilful false 
oath? — We cannot absolve without a public satisfaction for a 
false oath. I have never got a ha'penny nor a promise of on© 
from the present Lord Altham. I have never received money 
or promise of money from any man living about this trial. 

JoETN Rtan, cross-examination continued — I have been living 
since August last at Ballykihoge, which is between Wexford 
and Enniscorthy. I have been in the county of Wexford for 
about two years. Before that I lived in Aghabo, in the 
Queen's County, for about two years. I lived there in a house 
of my own. I know Mr. Baggs, a farmer there, and I also 
knew Mr. Webb. The parish priest of Aghabo waa Darby 
Cleary. I removed to the place where I am now because I 
thought it better. 

Would not a priest give absolution in the case of a man who 
had made a mistake in his memory? — Yes, upon repentance. 
246 



Evidence for Plaintiff. 

Father Downes told me that he had a doubt, that if he should John Ryan 
make a mistake he •would apply for a remedy. I told him 
that he was very old and sickly, and was always concerned in 
every cause that was stirring in the neighbourhood, and his 
memory might fail him. 

If Father Downes should die, are you to get his parish? — I 
am not to get his parish or anything else. I told this con- 
versation that I had had with Father Downes to one Kelly, in 
Ross, about a fortnight ago, and also to one John Hickey, 
who is a clergyman that is waiting for a parish. 

Is not Kelly a man that is employed to collect witnesses for 
Mr. Annesleyt — I don't remember that I ever heard he was a 
man gathering witnesses. I have been living in the White 
Cross Inn, in Pill Lane. 

Are not the witnesses for Mr. Annesley kept at that inn, or 
some of them? — Indeed, I suppose they may be. 

Why cannot you answer directly? — They are. I have never 
been in that inn before. Kelly told me that what I had said 
to him in Ross would be material to give in evidence, but I 
said that I would not give evidence. Kelly came to town 
with me, but he introduced me to nobody at the inn except 
the man of the house. I saw Mr. Annesley; I introduced myself 
to him. 

Further Evidence for the Plaintiff closed. 



SBaJHAvr Marshall mentioned the limitations of the estate Serjeant 
by the will of Earl James, and observed that Lord Altham was *''^°* 
tenant for life, remainder to his son, and that by concealing 
that he had a son it was easier for him to sell reversions ; and 
that it was his interest to conceal that he had a son from his 
creditors ; that though sometimes the Lord Altliam and the 
present defendant were not upon good terms, yet they joined 
in setting reversionary leases. He then set forth the limitations 
of the wills and codicils which were on the table. 

NioeoLAB LoFTUs, recalled — I know Michael Downes, parish N. LoftMs 
priest of Tyntern. He has been a tenant of mine for twelve or 
thirteen years. He has a good character. I know nothing of 
him but the general reputation that he behaves well in the 
country. 

Do you think that, if he had £200 offered him to say any- 
thing particular upon his oath, and could be absolved, he 
would not swear to it? — I cannot say anything to that, but I 
should believe him upon his oath. 

Would you, under the circumstances that hare been men- 
tioned? — I cannot say that. 

247 



The Anncsley Case. 

Mu. Baron Modntenbt — Let sonKlx>dy be sent for Mrs. 
Heath, Mrs. Cole, and Eleanor Murphy. We must examine 
them again, because much of this cause depends on their 
testimony. 

E. Murphy Elelvnor Murpht, recalled. I never knew Rolph at Lord 
Altham's house. I cannot be positive who was butler in the 
house while I wa^ there. I was employed under the laundiy- 
maid. 

Who were the servants that lived there at the time my Lady 
Altham was brought to bed? — There was Mrs. Heath for one, 
and Anthony Dyer for another. I cannot remember what was 
the nature of Anthony Dyer's service. I cannot say whether I 
would know Anthony Dyer by sight, as it is a long time ago since 
I saw him. I think that the Christian name of the gardener 
was Arthur. Mary Doyle was housemaid at that time. To the 
best of my knowledge, the name of the coachman was Weedon. 
I do not remember one Mary Waters or one Mrs. Setwright. 
I was at Dunmaine when Lady Altham came. I do not remem- 
ber any housekeeper being brought down by her. As far as I 
remember, a woman cook came along with her, but I don't 
remember her name. I do not remember one Betty Doyle. 
I do not remember there being a man cook at Dunmaine in my 
time. I do not reiiember one Michael Foster. I remained 
in the service for about three-quarters of a year after Lady 
Altham came. I do not remember who was laundrymaid at 
that time. I remember Mary Doyle because she was a noted 
servant in the house. There was a woman, whose name, I 
think, was Murphy, employed to weed in the garden. I don't 
remember her being called Black Nell. I do not know whether 
Mrs. Butler, of Ross, is dead or alive. I do not know whether 
Lady Altham had been at Dunmaine House before I was a 
servant there. I was hired by Mr. Taylor, and I heard that 
there was a lady that was going to come home. I saw Lady 
Altham in Mrs. Butler's house before I was hired. I cannot 
tell how long that was before she had a child. 

Look at that man (pointing to Rolph). Did you ever see 
him before? — I never saw or heard of him before, upon my 
oath. 

Thomas Rolph Thomas Rolph, recalled — I never saw that woman (Eleanor 
Murphy) before that I know of. I entered Lord Altham's 
service about the end of 1711 or the beginning of 1712, and I 
continued butler with him till I left between Michaelmas and 
Christmas of 1715. I do not remember the time that my Lord 
and Lady Altham came together in Dublin. There was no 
servant of the name of Charles Meagher at Dunmaine during 
my time. 
248 



Further Evidence. 

Mart Dotle, recalled — Do you know that man (pointing to Mary Doyle 
Rolph)? Did you ever see him before? — There were a great 
many people I knew since I came to town that I did not know 
before. I was in service at Dunmaine about three months 
before my Lady Altham was brought to bed, and I stayed about 
five weeks after While I was there the butler was one Charles 
Meagher. I do not remember the name of Rolph — he was not 
there in my time. 

To Thomas Kolph — Do you remember anything of her (point- 
ing to Mary Doyle) 1 — I don't remember to have seen her face 
before to my knowledge. 

To Mart Dotle — Do you know anybody that remembers this 
Charles Meagher besides you? — Yes, there are Bryan Cormack 
and Dennis Redmonds. 

To Eleanor Murpht — Who came into the service first, you 
or Mary Dovle? — Mary Dovle did, and I stayed on after Mary 
Doyle left. ' 

To Mart Dotle — When did you come into the service? — 
After Christmas, but I cannot tell how long after. 

To Eleanor Mukpht — You are sure that you came into the 
flervice after Mary Doyle? — After her; no, I was there before 
her. I am quite sure that I was there first, and had been 
there for nearly a quarter of a year. I was at Dunmaine a 
good while before my hidy came. I do not know what time 
of the year it was when my lady came. Before I came to 
Dunmaine I was in Mrs. Butler's service at Ross, and I saw 
Lady Altham there. Dennis Redmonds was a servant in Dun- 
maine House; he went errands, and he was there before I came. 
Joan La£fan was not there when I came. 

To Thomas Rolph — Do you remember Joan Laffan? — No. 
She was not at Dunmaine in my time. I was in the service 
when my lord and lady came down to Dunmaine at Christmas, 
1713. Lord Altham stayed for two or three days at Wexford, 
end when he came back to Dunmaine he remained there two 
or three weeks, and then went to Dublin. I do not remember 
whether my lady went with him to Dublin or not. Before 
I came to Ireland I kept a public-house in Chelsea, next door 
to Lord Altham's house. 1 was married, and my wife used 
to assist me in my businesfl. I never received any wages from 
my lord nor did 1 ever demand nny. lie was owing mo £-0, 
or a little less. 

Joan Lafkan, recalled — ^Look at that man (pointing to Rolph). joan Laffan 
Did you ever hcc him before? — Indeed I cannot tell. To the 
best of my knowledge the butler at Dunmaine during my time 
there was Charles Meagher. 

249 



The Annesley Case. 



Joan Laflaii To Thomas Kolph — Look at that woman (pointing to Joan 
Laffan). Do you remember to have seen her before? — Never. 

To Joan Lafkax — Who was butler before Meagher? — Indeed 
I cannot tell, but I heard there was one Kolph in it before. 

Do you know these women (pointing to Murphy and Doyle)? 
— Yes, I have known them for above twenty years. Neither 
of them was in the service at Dunmaine during my time, but 
I heard that they had been. To the best of my knowledge I 
came to Ij^uIv Altham very late in the harvest. My lady was 
at Dunmaine at the time, and she hired me. 

Can you remember whether it was before or after Michael- 
mas, 1715, that you were hired by my lady? — Upon my word, 
I cannot exactly remember. 

Was it about All Hallowtide? — Somewhere thereabouts. 
Charles Meagher was the butler in the house all the time I wa» 
there. To the best of my knowledge he had come thers 
shortly before I came. 

To Thomas Kolph — Can you recollect whether it was before 
or after harvest in the year 1715 that you left Dunmaine? — It 
was after harvest. I am positive of that, because it was after 
Michaelmas that I left, and the harvest is commonly in before 
Michaelmas. My Lord Altham was in Dublin when I left 
Dunmaine. I think he had been theie for two months. We 
went to Wexford in the spring of the year when the Pre- 
tender's men were tried. 

To Elbanor Murphy — Do you remember any great eclipse at 
that time? — Indeed I heard theie was such a thing. I saw a 
darkness, but I cannot tell when it was. I was in Ross at 
that time. It would be a good while before I entered Lady 
Altham's service. I was living then at Mrs. Butler's. I was 
with Lady Altham before she was brought to bed. 

1. Redmonds Dbknis Rbdmonds, recalled — Who was butler when you lived 
at Lord Altham's? — There was — I cannot exactly say who was 
there when I went first. 

Who was there when you first went there? — One Meagher, 
and there was another man, a married man who came from 
Dublin. 

Do you know that man (pointing to Rolph) — I do. 

To Thomas Kolph — Do you know him (pointing to Red- 
monds)? — I think I do. I believe he was a servant in my 
time. 

To Dbnkis Redmonds — Was Rolph in the service while you 

were there? — lie wa.s in the service, and I saw him about the 

cellar and several places. I cannot exactly remember the time 

of or the occasion for Rolph's leaving the service. Meagher 

250 



Further Evidence. 

was butler at the time my lady was brought to bed, and upon D. Redmonds 
my oath it was he that gave the servants drink upon that 
occasion. I know Eleanor Murphy. I remember her as a 
servant at Dunmaine, but I cannot tell at what time. 

To Joan Laffan — Who was butler at the time of the birth 
of the child t — Charles Meagher. 

To Mart Dotle — Who was butler? — Charles Meagher. 

To EIlhanor Murphy — Who do you say was butler? — Charles 
Meagher. 

To Thomas Rolph — Do you remember such a servant as 
Charles Meagher? — I do not. 

To Mart Dotlb — How long had you been in the service before 
Murphy came into it? — I was three months altogether. I 
remember Eleanor Murphy being in the service, but I cannot 
remember whether she came before or after me. 

Do you remember the rejoicings and the bonfire at the birth 
of the child? 

To Elbanor Mukpht — Do you? — I do. 

To Dbxnis Redmokds — Do you? — I do. 

To Joan Laffan — Do you? — No, I do not. 

To Thomas Kolph — Do you remember any such thing? — No. 

To Dhnnis Redmonds — Do you remember the great eclipse? 
— Upon my word, I cannot tell. I remember there was a durk- 
nesa one morning, but I took no notice of it. I do 
not know where I wan living at the time. Upon my 
oath, I have a peii'ect remembrance of the rejoicings on the 
birth of the child. Rolph went away before those rejoicings. 
I camiot say whether my lord and lady were at home then or 
not. I remember the gardener, Arthur, very well ; he was a 
strong, lusty man. I do not know what was the occasion of 
Rolfih'a going away. When I brought the midwife she alighted 
in the yard. I immediately went into the stable with the 
horse, and she went into the house. She rode behind me, and 
we conversed along the road. She spoke English. 

John Turner, recalled — 1 made my first visit to Lady Alt- John Tur««r 
ham about three weeks or a month after my marriage, on 29th 
December, 1714. I was back and forwards, and my wife stayad 
at Lady Altharn's every night for six or seven weeks. 

Do you know that man (pointing to Rolph)? -I do not. I 
cannot say whether I ever saw his face before. 

To Tno¥.\.9 Roi.PH — Do you know this man (pointing to 
Turner)?— No, I do not. 

To John Turner — Who acted as butler during the time you 

251 



The Annesley Case. 



Jokn Turner visitetl at Dunmaine? — He was a Bhorler man than thiu. I 
do not remember who was butler. 

Can you take upon you to say it was not that man? — Indeed, 
I cannot say. I was at Dunmaine House again in July or 
August, but I cannot remember who was the butler then. At 
the time my wife visited I took Lady Altham to be with child. 
When I saw my lady again in August, 1715, she was light and 
not with child. 

To Thomas RoLrii — How long before you left Lord and 
Lady Altham did they leave Dunmaine in the year 1715? — Two 
or three months, I believe. 

Was Loid or Lady Altham there in the month of July or 
August. 1715? — I cannot tell. They were in Dublin, but I 
cannot recollect the time they went. 

They would leave Dunmaine either in July or the latter end 
of June? — I am quite positive about that. They did not return to 
Dunmaine while I lived there, and I continued to live there 
from that time till after harvest, 1715. My lord went to Dublin 
about three weeks or a month after the assizes, but I cannot be 
positive as to whether my lady went with him or after him. 
From that time till I left for England I never saw my Lord 
Altham. I am quite certain of the year I left the service because 
it was the year of the Rebellion, and I went directly and bought 
into the troop of Horse Guards. 

What became of you after? — I did my duty. The first duty 
I ever was on was in the camp at Hyde Park. 

To John Turner — I do not believe my wife was with me all 
the time I w-as at Dunmaine. I overtook Lord Altham going 
to the assizes. He was in a wheeled carriage, but I could not 
say whether it was a coach or a chariot. I do not know where 
he lodged in town. I spoke to him several times at the Bull- 
ring. I believe Walsh was indicted at that time. My lord had 
two servants with him. He had neither women nor girls 
with him ; there were no women on horseback. I was at his 
house, and I saw him going into the coach, but I did not see 
any woman in the coach leaving the house with him. My 
lady was at home ; I know that because I saw her that very 
day. It must have been that assizes, because it was the 
assizes after I wa-s married, and I am positive that Walsh was 
indicted then. I am sure I saw my lady in the house that 
day after my lord was gone. I remember a great eclipse in 
April or May a year after I was married. I think it was after 
I was at the Wexford Assizes. At the time of the eclipse I 
was near Mr. Colclough's on my way to Wexford. I cannot 
remember whether that was the first time I was at Wexford 
after the a^vsizes. 

Can you be positive whether it was one year or three years 

252 



Further Evidence. 

after? — Indeed, I cannot, but I think it was not one year. I John Turner 
was not in the Court-house at that assizes, and I cannot name 
any one that was tried there, but I think Mr. Walsh was 
indicted. 

Mrs. Heath, recalled — You said that Rolph was butler at Mary HeatK 
Dunmaine? — Yes, when I first went down. I do not recollect 
how long he continued there, but I remember he went away 
when we were in Dublin, and in his place my lord hired one 
Charles Meagher and sent him down to Dunmaine. He was 
sent while we were at Mrs. Vice's. 

Was there any account that Rolph had quitted the family 
before Meagher was hired? — I cannot tell; but there was a 
quarrel between Rolph and the gardener, and he was ordered 
to quit. 

What time of the year did you go back with my lady to 
Dunmaine? — It was above a year we stayed in the town. 

Did Meagher act as butler during that time? — He did. I 
came over with my lady from England, and we went to lodge 
at the house of Captain Briscoe. We went straight from 
there to Dunmaine, and got there about Christmas Eve. We 
did not go to any other house to lodge. 

Mrs. Henrietta Cole, recalled — Do you remember the time h. Cole 
of Lady Altham's coming to your house when the reconcilia- 
tion happened? — I do. To the best of my knowledge, Lord 
and Lady Altham did not stay in our house above four or five 
days, and then they went and took lodgings at Mrs. Vice's 
house. 

To Mr.s. Heath — Do you know this gentlewoman (pointing 
to Mrs. Cole)? — I do remember her. 

To Mrs. Cole — Did you ever visit after they had left your 
house while they remained in town? — I cannot tell, but I believe 
we might. 

Can you be positive that they lodged in any other house in 
Dublin but your father's before they left Dublin? — I am 
positive. 

What reason have you to think that they went to Mrs. Vice't; 
house before they went to Dunmaine? — After my lord and lady 
came together, my father was still uneasy until my lord took 
her to a lodging of his own. He thought if they went to lodge 
at flome other place it might have a better air of reconciliation. 

Did you understand your father to mean by that that it 
would become more puVjlic and notorious to mankind that 
Lord and J^ady Altham were really reconciled? — Yes, I under- 
stood that to be his meaning. Jiady Altham was at our 
house about a month or six weeks before my lord came, and 

253 



The Annesley Case. 



H, Cole she did not stay for more than five days after the reconciliation 
at our house. 1 went down to Dunmaine in the winter time. 
I remember an accident happening which frightened and fretted 
my lady, upon which she became indisposed, and I remember 
a servant being sent up by my lord desiring my lady to come 
to supper. My mother was with her two or three times to 
call her, but she excused herself. 

Do you remember anything that happened upon that? — My 
lady miscarried. 

Who gave that notice first to your mother? — Mrs. Heath. 
My mother was called up in the night by Mrs. Heath, 
who came to my mother's room and said, " For God'a sake, 
madam, get up as soon as you can, for my lady is exceedingly 
iU." 

To Mrs. Heath — Do you remember that fact? — No, there 
was no such thing happened, for my lady never miscarried. 

Do you remember that you called up Mrs. Briscoe in the 
night? — No, I never did. I do not know what I should call 
her for. 

Did you ever tell Mrs. Briscoe that your lady had mis- 
carried? — No, for if I had I should have told a false thing. I 
never stayed a night in any house in Dublin but Captain 
Briscoe's till we went to Dunmaine. 

To Mrs. Colb — Were you after that time in my lady's bed- 
chamber? — Yes, I was there next morning. 

To Mrs. Heath — Was she in my lady's bedchamber the next 
morning? — I do not know but w^hat she might be, for my lady 
always breakfasted in her bedchamber. 

To Mrs. Cole — Who was it that showed you that which you 
took to be the abortion? — My mother. I cannot tell whether 
Mrs. Heath was there or not. When my lady came to Ireland 
I was thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen years old — I cannot remem- 
ber. I believe I am either forty-five or forty-six years old 
now. I cannot tell how long my lord and lady stayed in 
Dublin after they left my father's house before they went to 
Dunmaine. I cannot tell how often I would see them during 
that time. 

To Mrs. Heath — Did my lady keep her bed or not the day 
after the accident to the saucers? — No, it never disturbed her, 
for she was glad they were gone. She did not keep her room 
the next day. 

To Mrs. Cole — Did my lady keep her room the day after? — 
She did, and for some days after. Rolph was butler when I 
-was at Dunmaine. 

Proof Closed. 

254 



Thursday, 24th November, 1743. 

[The speeches of the counsel and judges are here taken from 
State Trials. As the reader has been told in the Introduction, 
the contemporary published reports in the folio and in The 
Trial at Bar give versions of the speeches which vary much 
from those in State Trials, and these two versions also vary 
from each otJier. The variations are most remarkable in the 
observations of counsel on the evidence of Major Fitzgerald, 
which is scarcely touched on by the speeches in State Trials. 
His evidence is the crucial point ; he certainly did not invent 
his stoiy ; he certainly i-ecognised, in Court, the pretty nurse 
to whom, thirty years before, he gave half a guinea when she 
brought to him a new born child, exhibited by Lord Altham 
as the son of himself and his wife. But as the Major stood 
by his recollection of the date of these events, September, 
1715, whereas the claimant's birth was, by his own case, in 
April, 1715, the highly important evidence was disregarded. 
There are other curious differences between the contemporary 
reports of speeches and those published in State Trials.^ 

The Court met according to adjournment, and the jury 
being called over answered to their names respectively. 

Mb. Priub Sbiueant Malonb, counsel for the defendant — Serjeant 
The matter in question, my lords, has taken up so much of your Malone 
lordships' time and of the gentlemen of the jury that I shall 
be as concise as I can, and hope to satisfy the jury tliat a 
verdict ought to be found in favour of the defendant, my client. 
But if I should happen to touch upon anything which I formerly 
mentioned (as this affair has been attended with such multi- 
plicity of evidences) I would request your lordships' indulgence. 

The single question Ix'fore the Court and the jury is, 
whether the lessor of the jilaintiff, Mr. James Annesley, is or is 
not the legitimate son of the late Arthur Lord Altham t The 
plaintiff's counsel have very ingeniously dressed out their case ; 
but when the ornaments are taken away it will, I hope, apj)ear 
that the plaintiff is the natural, and not the legitimate, son of 
Artliur, late Lord Altham. 

Before I proceed to the evidence it will be j)ropor to examine 
the condition and circumstjinces of the family before the time 
alleged for the birth of the lessor of the plaintiff. Arthur, 
first Earl of Anglesea, liad issue five sons — James, his eldest 
son; Altham, his second son; Richard, tliird son, created Ijord 

255 



The Annesley Case, 



Serjeant Althani ; Charles, his fourth son; and Arthur, his fifth son. On 
*°"® the marriage of James, in 1699, a settlement was made by 
Arthur, the first earl, and several provisions and limitations 
therein. liichard, Lord Altham, died in 1701, leaving Arthur, 
late Loid .:\Jtham, and the present defendant. James, eon of 
Earl Arthur, levied fines and sutTered a recovery of his estate, 
and on the Htli of May, 1701, made his will, wherein was 
a remainder to Arthur, late Lord Altham, for life, i-emainder 
to his first and evei-y other son in the tail male, with several 
remainders over. 

Subsequent to this, upon the death of Richard, Lord Altham, 
on the 9th of December, 1701, ho made another will, limiting 
a remainder to Arthur, late Lord Altham, for life, remainder 
to his first and eveiy other son, with several remainders over; 
but no manner of notice was t^iken of the defendant, who is 
the second son of Lord Richard, and Earl James the same day 
affixed a codicil thereto. On the 10th of December, 1701, he 
affixed two codicils more to his will, and subsequent to all these, 
on the 2nd of January, 1701, he affixed two other codicils to 
his will, so that there were two wills and six codicils with 
respect to this matter. 

The lessor of the plaintiff presumes to pretend a right to the 
estate of the late Lord Altham under the said wills and codicils. 

Earl James had issue, James, John, and Arthur, who were 
successively Earls of Anglesea, and who all died without issue 
male ; and had the late Lord Altham, who was next in succession 
in point of blood, left a son, that son would have succeefled to 
the Altham and Anglesea estates. But I believe it has 
appeared to the satisfaction of your lordships and the gentle- 
men of the jury, by the evidence of the defendant, that he left 
no issue. If the late Lord Altham had had a son by his lady 
it would have been a matter of such consequence, that son 
being heir-apparent to the Anglesea estate and title, that his 
birth would be publicly known, and the birth of such a son 
would be attende<l with such notoriety that it could not be 
concealed. The near relations of the family would be made 
acquainted therewith ; his friends, neighbours, and acquaint- 
ances who used to visit his lordship must know something of 
it. Yet it is not pretended that any of these weie apprise^! 
of the late Lord Altham's ever having a son by his lady. If 
there was such a son such a transaction would be public ; it 
could not remain in doubt, and it is impossible it should be a 
secret to all the world, except two or three of the meanest 
servants, which carries a presumption very near a demonstra- 
tion that Lord Altham never had a son by his lady. 

I would observe another circumstance which must be pro- 
digiously surprising if there had been such a son — it was not 
even intimated that any of the newspapers published at that 
256 



Speeches. 



time ever mentioned the birth of any such son. I believe it Serjeant 
is unnecessai-y to inform your lordships how industrious the ^alone 
news-writers are to fill their papers with paragraphs on such 
occasions, and especially when a nobleman is blessed with an 
heir to so immense an estate. Is it not constantly inserted in 
the daily and weekly papers, both in this kingdom and England, 
the lady of such a one was safely delivered of a son, to the great 
joy of that noble family 1 And these latter words are par- 
ticularly added when any noble family has continued some 
considerable time without issue. As that was pretty much 
the case with respect to the late Lord Altham, it is manifest 
his lordship never had any legitimate issue. I say, my lords, 
if Lord Altham had been so happy as to have a son and heir, 
surely his family, .who were interested in tlie succession, cannot 
be supposed to be strangers thereto ; it woTild be the common 
rumour and discourse of the whole neighbourhood, and the 
public in general would have proclaimed it. 

Some stress has been laid by the plaintiflE's comisel on the 
fondness showed by Lord Altham to the lessor of the plaintiff 
when a child. We see very frequently how fond men are of 
an illegitimate son, especially when they have no legitimate 
issue ; and I believe some instances might be shown that men 
have sometimes preferred their natuial issue to their lawful 
children. So that I say the fondness of the late Lord Altham 
can have no weight to support the pretensions of the lessor of 
the plaintiff, for if a man should have a bastard by a servant- 
maid, is it not natural for him to take care of his offspring? 

The lessor of the plaintiff has endeavoured to fish up cir- 
cumstances, yet he has failed in proving his birth ; and the 
foundation being sapped, the superstructuie will consequently 
fall. He liegan with endeavouring to prove Lady Altham 
a woman likely to have children, and that she had two mis- 
carriages and a real birth in one year. I believe, my lords, 
the gentlemen of the jury, from their own attention to the 
occurrences in life, will observe how improbable, nay, even 
impossible, it is for a woman to miscari-y twice at times so 
veiy distant, and in the space of that very year to be brouglit 
to bed of a son. Tliis shows how the lessor of the j)laintiff 
has overshot liimself, and has quite overturned the credibility 
of his pretensions. 

It is agreed that the late Lord Altham and his lady were 
marrie^l in 1706; that they afterwards parted in 1709, and 
that about 1713 they were reconcilorl, and Lady Altham came 
into Ireland. The falling-out on account of Mr. Palliser and 
the separation therouf)on were publicly known in the neigh- 
bourhood. The circumstances of their reconciliation after the 
separation of four years would call in general on the ntt-ontion 
of the family and the curiosity of the people, so that if a child 
» 257 



The Anncsley Case. 



Serjeant was born to inherit tliat estat-e it nuist liave necessarily en- 
alone gagod tlie attention of the family ; it would have engaged the 
attention of the whole kingdom ; and if this has not appeai-ed 
with the utmost clearness, it carries with it the strongest 
presumption against the plaintiff. My lords, a fact of such 
importance that appears in the least doubtful must be false, 
because, if true, it would have been evident and notorious 
beyond the reach of a doubt. 

Two ladies are produced as evidence for the plaintiff — Mrs. 
Cole and Miss Briscoe — whereon a good deal of stress is laid 
with respect to the period of time that Lady Altliam went to 
Dunmaine after the reconciliation. Mrs. Cole said that Lady 
Altham came to Ireland in 1713, and stayed at her father's 
house for some time ; from thence went to lodge at Vice's, and 
from Vice's went to Dunmaine. This, I say, is made use of 
to lessen the evidence of Mrs. Heath, who said that Lady 
Altham went directly to Dunmaine from Captain Briscoe's 
house, and therein disagreed with the evidence of Mrs. Cole. It 
must be presumed that if Lady Altham went to Vice's before 
she went to the country, Miss Briscoe would have visited her, 
■which neither she nor Mrs. Cole remembers. Want of memory 
in that particular lessens their credit in others. And, indeed, 
I think it very improbable that Lady Altham would have 
changed her lodgings from Briscoe's house to Vice's for such 
a short space of time, and for so idle a reason as is suggested. 
This circumstance should, in a great measure, take away the 
force of Mrs. Cole's and Miss Briscoe's evidence. 

It may be reasonably supposed that after the pretended re- 
conciliation some of Lord Altham's relations would pay her 
ladyship some of the ordinary honours due on such an occa- 
sion, some of the family would have been entertained, some of 
them would have been invited, some of them w-ould have 
visited her, or would have taken leave of her when she went to 
the countrj^ And as Miss Briscoe or Mrs. Cole have never 
mentioned any of these circumstances, their testimony is not 
much to be relied on. Wha^ Mrs. Cole said in favour of the 
plaintiff and the evidence of Mrs. Heath in behalf of the de- 
fendant deserve to be very well considered by the gentlemen of 
the jury. I believe the gentlemen of the jury will remember 
that Mrs. Cole first swore she was twelve or thirteen years 
old at the time of the pretended miscarriage, and afterwards 
said she was fifteen years old. A girl of twelve cannot be 
supposed to take notice of such minute cii'cumstances in 
relation to the miscarriage, for such things could not make 
an impression at that age. It was indeed prudent of Mrs. 
Cole to have afterwards added two years, to the best of her 
remembrance. As Mrs. Heath was constantly with Lady 
Altham, she could not forget such remarkable circumstances 
258 



speeches. 



as Mrs. Cole mentioned. Mrs. Heath was then in the bloom Serjeant 
of life, about the age of twenty-five years, when aU the '*^'°°® 
human faculties are in full vigour, and surely it is natural to 
believe that a person can better i-emember transactions at 
that age, when the judgment is ripe and the memory 
more susceptible of retention, than at the age of 
twelve or thirteen years, as Mrs. Cole says she then was. 
I appeal to the common sense of manlvind whether the evidence 
of Mrs. Cole or Mrs. Heath should prevail. Mrs. Cole, I think, 
said that Lady Altham lodged at her father's house six weeks ; 
Mrs. Heath mentioned only three weeks. One was a child, 
and the other a woman grown. It was impossible that Mrs. 
Heath could be mistaken, but Mrs. Cole was liable to be 
mistaken. Therefore, in my humble apprehension — and I 
hope your lordships and the jui-y will be of the same opinion 
— the evidence of Mrs. Cole can have no great weight. 

The first miscarriage, my lords, according to Mrs. Cole's 
account, was in April, May, or June, 1714; she is not certain 
in which of these months it happened. It seems a dream 
to her, and not a reality ; yet she pretends to have heard it 
from Mrs. Heath, but herein I apprehend she cannot receive 
credit. The circumstances which Mrs. Cole mentioned of 
awaking her mother at night by Mrs. Heath should be con- 
sidered, and that Mrs. Cole was not the person who was awaked 
or called up. And as to what she says, that her mother 
showed her the abortion next morning, it cannot be supposed 
that a girl of twelve years old could know what an abortion 
was or what the word meant, which must be presumed to 
have been lately put into her mouth, by comparing what she 
has lately heard with other incidents, in order to be made a 
story. Therefore I say it carries with it the strongest pre- 
sumption that this must arise from some late discourses, adding 
thereto a faint remembrance, and mentioning some circum- 
stances that happened twenty-nine years ago, whereby she 
has persuaded herself that these things are true, which are 
the mere effects of her own brain, and thus Mrs. Cole is made to 
say what she has offered in evidence. 

My loids, Mrs. Cole in this respect is but a single witness, 
and is contradicted by Mrs. Heath and Rolph, to whom she 
appeals, and who, she owns, were servants in the house. 
Surely, if Lady Altham had miscarried, it must certainly l>e 
HU[)[>ofted that Mrs. Heath, her ladyship's woman, would be 
privy thereto ; and as she never knew nnything of that matter, 
and there is not a sintrle instance offered to prove it but the 
memory of a young girl, which is but little to Ijo reliod on, 
it is plain that no sucli pretended miscarriage ever happened. 

Catharine MacCormick, a woman in low circumHtances, is 
produced to j)rove a second miscarriage. A child proves the 

259 



The Annesley Case. 



Serloant first, and a sorvaiitinaid who li\o<l at Vice's is now jtretended 
to prove a sei-ond niiscarria<j;e. MaeCormick swears tliat Lady 
AlthaTu canio to town to Vice's alxiut the latter end of May, 
oi- hojrinninir of June, 1714, and al>out six weeks after mis- 
cairie<l, wliieh must l)e near or about the month of August. 
Cole's and MacCoiinick's accounts are inconsistent, and as both 
ave imjwssible to he believed, it brings a disrepute on one 
or other of the witnesses ; so that as one cannot tell which to 
In^lieve, there can be no de[>endence on the testimony of 
either. lioth Mis. Briscoe and Mrs. Cole sweai- that they saw 
Lady Altham in Dublin in August, 1714, and that they never 
heard of a second miscaiiiage ; and as they say they frequently 
visited Lady Altham, she could not miscarry without their know- 
ledge. MaeCormick said one Lawlor, a midwife, attended Lady 
Altham, and that she })revented the sending for Mrs. Lucas, 
who was tlK' midwife called for ; and that it was Mrs. Heath 
informed her of the second miscarriage. It seems very odd 
and absurd that Mrs. Lucas should be mentioned to l>e sent 
for, and not one word of Lawlor, yet that Lawlor should be 
the person brought to attend on that occasion. 

Mrs. Alice Bates is a stranger to the second miscarriage at 
Vice's. She says that in two months after Lady Altham's 
coming to Vice's she was visibly with child, and that she 
clapped her hand on her ladyship's big belly. This is very 
improbable, or that Lord Altham should say to her, *' By 
God, Ally, Moll's with child," and though she would endeavour 
to prove her ladyship's pregnancy by the manner she pretends 
Lord Altham spoke so familiarly to her, yet in my humble 
apprehension it destroys her credit. If Lord Altham gloried 
in her ladj'ship's big belly it is astonishing that it should not 
be known to all his acquaintances and relations ; for if he 
spoke with so much freedom to Mrs. Bates it must be supposed 
he would have published it to all the world. Bates said she 
published it in the family of the Briscoes, and they say they 
knew nothing of it. Bates said Lady Altham was big with 
child in November at Vice's. MacCormick swore when she 
observed Lady Altham with child it was about Christmas ; 
and as these evidences vary in such a manner it should take 
away the force of their evidence.* 

I am now, my lords and gentlemen, come to the period 
of time wherein the supposed biith of the lessor of the plaintiff 
is said to have hap}>ened, which was either the latter end 
of April or beginning of May, 1715. To prove this Dennis 
Redmonds is the first fjerson pi-oduced, who, by his own con- 
fession, was a stableboy, and that is the best description of 
him. His evidence is falsified by himself. He tells you 



* How do they vary ?— Ed. 
260 



Speeches. 



that he came to Lord Altham's service about thirty-three Serjeant 
years ago, -nhich was before the reconciliation of his lordship '*^*°"^ 
to his lady, and that he continued in the service for three 
3'ears. If he is right in this, he must have left the service 
before the time of the pretended bii'th. My lords, it appears 
that Lord Altham went to live at Dunmaine in 1711, yet 
Kedmonds must be in the service, as he says, in 1710. This 
point seems to be carried by the gentlemen a little too far ; 
they have settled their witness in the service five years ante- 
cedent to the birth, and as he lived but about three years 
in Lord Altham's service he could not have known the trans- 
actions of the supiposed birth. How little stress is to be laid 
on this witness is very plain. Indeed, his very appearance 
created a strong prejudice to his disadvantage, and that pre- 
judice is well justified b}- the inconsistency of his evidence. 
He said that he knew Rolph was in the family in his time, 
and he remembered no other circmnstance in relation to him 
but that he was about the cellar. And he did not remember 
any servant but that Charles Meagher was butler at the time 
of the birth ; aind yet it appears that Meagher came not into 
the service until after the time of the pretended birth. It is 
pretty remarkable that all the other defendant's witnesses 
know nothing of Rolph' s being in the family ; but they fix on 
Charles Meagher as a prelude to the play. 

Maiy Doyle is the next evidence in support of this pretended 
bii'th. She was a chambermaid in the family, and about 
twenty-eight or twentj'-nine yeai-s ago slie came into the service, 
and made a very short stay therein. She was never in the 
famUy before, and never came into Lady Altham's chamber 
befoie the time of the birth ; yet she is so lucky to come there 
at that critical juncture. She could not remember of any 
f>eison being there, except Madam Butler of Koss, Eleanor 
Murphy, the midwife, and herself. But Mrs. Heath was there 
some time afterwards, yet Eleanor Murphy could not remem- 
ber of any person being in the room when Lady Altham was 
bronglit to bed except Mrs. Heath. When an affair, my 
lords, is ushered in after this manner, and the evidence an 
al)solute stranger to other circumstances (which are to be 
known by the rest of the witnesses), this, I aj){)rehend, must 
greatly tend to have overturned the credit of their testimony. 

Can it be suppose<l that a child bom to all those honours 
should only be known to a chambermaid and an un<ler- 
laundr\maid (F^leanor Murphy)? If they were in the service 
Cwhich I must own I cannot prevail on myself to l)elieve) it 
must be aft^-r the time fixed for the supposed birth, and by 
the meanness of tlieir stations it can scarce be i)ri'sunie<l they 
would have l)een employt'<l alxnit the birtli. It is demonstrable 
from their own showing that one or the other of them is 

261 



The Anncslcy Case. 



Serjennt perjured ; for Miwy Doyle said she was in the service before 
Malone Eleanor Murphy, and Muri)hy said tJiat Doyle was in the 
service before her. It seems they both forgot their lessons. 
Mary Doyle being interrogated last day said, first, that Eleanor 
Murphy was in Lord Altham's service before her, and after- 
wards said she could not tell if Eleanor Murphy was in the 
service befoi'e her time. These are contradictions not to be 
reconciled, and should induce a disbelief of both their evidence. 

I must now observe to your lordships how Eleanor Mui-phy 
contradicts herself in point of time as to the eclipse which 
happened tbe 22nd of April, in the year 1715. It was a very 
memorable thing. She said that she was at that time at 
Captain Butler's at Ross. If she swore true she must have 
been in Dunmaine at that time, it being about that period of 
time that the lessor of the plaintiff has fixed his birth. An- 
other contradiction arises from her testimony. She said she 
was in Dunmaine three months before the birth (which was in 
April or May, as pretended), yet from her own admission she 
was in Ross the 22nd of April, and came (as she says) to Lord 
Altham's service the day following. This is as equally incon- 
sistent as the rest. To consider her testimony in another 
respect, if she came to the service the day after the eclipse, 
and was in the service three months before the birth, the child 
must be born in the month of July. From circumstances only 
persons sometimes can be proved perjured ; but it is plain they 
were at a loss, and could not make all parts of the machine 
to hang together. As a proof hereof, let us consider how Maiy 
Doyle swears that Major Fitzgerald came to Dunmaine the day 
after the birth, and lay there that night. He swore he came 
to Dunmaine in the month of September, the day after the 
child was bom, but did not continue there, for he went to 
Ross that night. Mr. Fitzgerald gave very particular reasons 
for his being at Dunmaine that month — that the harvest was 
over, and that people at that time generally pay their half- 
year's rent ; and he gave an account how he was invited by 
Lord Altham, and that the child was shown to him, and he 
gave the nurse half a guinea.* Surely, my lords, it is in- 
credible that Lady Altham could have a child in May and 
another in September following ._ 

I humbly conceive that Major Fitzgerald, from his educa- 
tion and character, must be presumed to be believed before 
Doyle or Murphy ; or if their evidence be regarded, conse- 
quently what Mr. Fitzgerald swore cannot be true. For my 
part, I would not give up the Major to them in point of credit. 
He tells you how he was attacked and how he defended himself. 
He appears to be a gentleman of figure and reputation, and 



At the Trial he recognised Mary Doyle as the nurse. — Ed. 
262 



Speeches. 



therefore his testimony ought to be relied on preferably to Serjeant 
theirs. But as it is impossible that both stories should be ^aione 
true, it must bring an imputation on the cause ; and, my 
lords, it is humbly presumed that by the several contradictions 
arising from the evidence on behalf of the lessor of the plaintiff, 
in order to entitle him to a verdict, it is essentially requisite 
on him to ascertain a more positive, distinct, and creditable 
account of his birth. 

I must take notice to your lordships to what difficulties the 
plaintiff was drove in point of evidence. There has not been 
a single person of credit near Ross, or a freeholder of £10 a 
year about that place produced to prove his birth, though 
Dunmaine lies within three miles of l\oss (a town of great trade 
and business), and though Lord Altham had a considerable 
estate there. And this is attended with another circumstance, 
that the plaintiff'' s birth was not registered in the parish where 
he is pretended to be bom. Though it is said that there were 
public rejoicings in Dunmaine for his birth, yet we find no 
gentleman in that part of the country knew anything of it, 
nor is there any person above the degree of a servant produced 
to give any account of his birth. Why has not the plaintiff' 
produced better evidence? Everything is to be proved by 
the best testimony it wiU admit of. The fact might well 
admit better evidence, but the cause wiU not afford it. 

I shall next make some obsei*vations, my lords, on the 
appointing Joan Landy to be nurse for this pretended child. It 
is said the child remainded with her fourteen or fifteen months. 
Her name was given in to the defendant's counsel to be ex- 
amined as one of the witnesses for the plaintiff. Wliy is not 
she produced ? The gentlemen of the other side promised from 
day to day that we should see her examined ; and we ex- 
pected that accordingly she was to have woimd up the bottom. 
She could not shelter herself by saying she was only three 
months in the service. Either the consciousness that she 
could not swear that Lady Altham had a child, or that her 
infirmity would not admit her to have art enough to disguise, 
prevented the plaintiff from examining her. The plaintiff's 
counsel, being pressed by the defendant's counsel to produce 
her, have marie an ingenious apology for her — that she is an 
infirm old woman, but this cannot be the reason. However 
weak she is, she must still speak truth. She was longer 
conversant in the affairs of the family than either Doylo or 
Murphy. It iiuhioes a strong presumj)tion of the badness of 
the cause. There must be some contrivance in giving her 
name among the list of evidences, and afterwards in omitting 
to examine her. I say, therefore, my lords, it is plain that 
the plaintiff apprehendefl truth would force its way if Landy 
had been examined ; she must know whether she had a bastard 

263 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant by Lord Altham. or whctlar she nursed any child for him. 

Malone ^g j j^^^^ inrorniotl tliat she is in town, and [n'rhaps in Court, 
it must have been the sti'ongest im])ression on the mind of every 
man that the wliole affair on the part of the plaintiff is a mere 
fiction, since he avoids the examination of a person who must 
be best apprised of the whole transaction.* 

Here I should take notice to your lordships and the gentle- 
men of the jui-y that Mary Doyle swore that Joan Landy was 
marrie<l to one MacCt)rmack before the birth of the less(jr of 
the plaintiff; and that they lived in the lands of Dunmaine ; 
though all the other Avitnesses say they were not married till 
after tlie separation of my lord and lady at Dunmaine, which 
was a long time after the lessor of the plaintiff is supj)osed to 
be born. This likewise shows the improbability of the 
plaintiff's story. Joan Landy must be with child, it is true, 
to qualify her to be a nurse ; and it appears she was unmarried 
at the time of nm-sing the child, and her child must be a year 
older than Lady Altham' s pretended child. 

If Lady Altham had a child, my lords, it is extremely sur- 
prising that so little care should be taken of it as to give it into 
the care of Joan Landy to be nursed, who was scarce chaste 
enough (if I am rightly instnicted) to confine herself to one 
person ; nobody can tell what disorders she might contract. 
For these reasons, from the apprehension of such dangei'S, it 
is very improbable Lady Altham would have entrusted her child 
to such a nurse. There are other reasons which must weigh 
greatly with your lordships and the gentlemen of the jury. It 
is proved that Lady Altham suspected Joan Landy to be with 
child by my lord, and therefore turned her out of the house 
on that account. Is it possible to think that this person to 
which Lady Altham had so gi-eat a disgust and aversion should 
be the very person she should think proper to fix on for the 
nursing her son and heir? And can it enter into the mind of 
man that Lord Altham, who never before had a child by his 
lady, and could not well expect to have any more, should 
consent that this only child of the family, born to such high 
honour and immense estate, should be sent to such a creature 
as Landy was, and be nursed in a mean cotter's cabin? It 
is unusual with gentlemen of tlie country to send their only 
child to be nursed abroad, especially when there are con- 
veniences for that purpose at home. 

As to Landy 's cottage, it appeared to be a cabin of the 
meanest kind. It is natural to suppose that if Lord Altham 
had a legitimate son he would not be admitted to be nursed 
abroad, proper persons wonld have been appointed to attend 
the child at home ; and the tenderness of Lady Altham for her 



*The defence did not call Joan Landy. — Ed. 
264 



Speeches. 



child would so strongly overflow in her that she could not Serjeant 
bear having him out of her sight, and Lord Altham's interest, "**'°"® 
as well as his fondness, would influence him to have the child 
always under his eye. But to gloss over this fiction, and give 
it the appearance of a reality, this cabin is to be dressed up ; 
and Murphy adds a third room to the cottage, and this room 
is decked and oniament'cd for the nursing of the child ; but 
the other witnesses contradict Mui-phy, and aftirm that there 
was not a third room added. Murphy said that about three 
weeks after the birth of the child it was sent to be nmsed in 
this new-made room, a habitation extremely improper for a 
tender infant, bora to such honour and such an estate, and 
whose preservation must at that time have been his parent's 
greatest care. The fiction is too improbable to meet any 
credit. 

My lords, one Bartholomew Furlong mentions that three 
weeks before the child was born he applied in order to get the 
nursing of the child for his wife. By the plaintiff's evidence, 
about six weeks after this application, the child was sent to 
Landy's. Though this man was well recommendetl, and had 
the character of an honest man, yet his wife was refused, and 
a kitchen wench, under an ill-repute (as appeared in evidence) 
with the meanest of the servants, was preferred to Furlong's 
wife. But this is varnished over by a sudden indisposition 
to occasion her milk not to be wholesome ; and Dr. Brown, who 
was said to have examined her miJk, happens now not to be 
living. 

If a person had many children and was stinted for room in 
hi.s house, and the nursing a child at home was attended 
with inconveniences, this might be assigned as a reason for 
sending the cliild abroad. But that could not be the Lord 
Altliam's case. He had a large country house and a number 
of servants. It is very improbable that he should send his 
only son and heir out of his own house. 

The plaintiff, to make liis pretensions the more plausible. 
Las produced Philij) Breen and some other witnesses who sai<l 
theie weie great rejoicings and bonfires made for the birth of 
the child, and that there was a great christening and liquor 
given in abundance to the servants on that occasion. If there 
were any such i-ejoirings they would have lx?en public, and 
other stTviints must have seen them. But this it seems was 
intonfle<l to be concealed from all the other servants and the 
rest of mankind, except the witnesses who now endeavom- to 
prove it. The prove, near Lord Altliam's house, was an odd 
filace for a bonfire for jniblic rejoicings. If the fire was 
made without the grove the neighl)oura must have seen it. 
The whole matter is blended with such inconsistencies that it 
miist :i]i]H';\r ;m o<ld, jumbled story. 

265 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant I must now bog leave to make some observations to show 
your lordships and the gentlemen of the jury that the proof 
in point of credibility is on the side of the defendant, the 
Earl of Anglesea, and that if Ix)rd Altham had a child at 
the time pii>tended by the evidence to be born, Joan Landy 
and not Lady Altham must be the mother. 

As this extraordinary case, my lords, rolls on the birth of 
the lessor of the plaintiff, I shall consider some of the 
defendant's proofs, and shall first take notice of Mrs. Heath, 
who was Lady Altham's woman, and lived with her till her 
death. She swears positively that her ladyship never had 
a child while she was in her service, and she never heard till 
lately that Lady Altham ever had a child. She came to 
Ireland in 17L3, and went from Dublin with her ladyship to 
Dunmaine the Christmas Eve after her coming over and lived 
with her till her death, and never was absent one week from 
her ; so that it was impossible for Lady Altham to have a 
child without her knowledge. Yet she says she never observed 
any signs of her ladyship's pregnancy, and nobody can be 
supposed to know the circumstances of the family better than 
she. Rolph swore that Lady Altham never had a child, and 
never miscarried. Dyer, my lord's gentleman, swears the 
same, and they must have known it if any such had been, 
for they were the principal persons who were servants in the 
family. So that I say Mrs. Heath's testimony is strongly 
confirmed by their evidence. 

My lords, 1 would submit to your lordships and to the 
memorj^ of the gentlemen of the jury that the gentlemen of 
that part of the counti-^- swear they believe that Ladv Altham 
never had a child, that they never heard till lately that her 
ladyship had a child, and that if she had had a child they must 
have heard of it ; and the reason of the thing plainly speaks that 
the fact, if true, must have been publicly kno^vn in the neigh- 
bourhood. Mr. Palliser, the younger, who lived in the family 
for a long time, and is mentioned as the unhappy cause of 
the separation, swears he never heard that Lady Altham had 
a child. Mr. William Napper swears he lived at Ross for 
fifty years and was married to a near relation of Lord Altham's, 
and was entrusted with the affairs of the family, and was 
employed by the late Lord Anglesea to make leases of the 
Ross estate (the late Lord Anglesea coming into possession 
thereof after the death of the late Lord Altham), so that he 
must well know if Lord Altham had a son the Lord Anglesea 
could not have a right. Yet no person made any objection 
to the late Lord Anglesea's title, nor did the tenants make 
a difficulty to attorn to him. And if Lord Altham left a 
son it is impossible it would not have been known in the town 
of Ross. 
266 



Speeches. 



If Lady Altham had a son it would naturally be a great Serjeant 
comfort to her in her affliction after the separation. The '"*^°"® 
pi'ospect of having a son who was to succeed to so considerable 
an estate must alleviate her anxiety. In every company she 
•would have made frequent mention of him. Yet she never 
spoke one syllable of him to any person whatever. 

As to James Walsh, it is impossible that his testimony 
could be true. He states that on the day of the separation 
Lady Altham chose to come to town in the middle of the day, 
to be the object of public view, though innocent, and came to 
Captain Butler's before dinner. Herein Walsh differs from 
the plaintiff's other witnesses as to the time of the day. 
Walsh swears, further, that her ladyship came to Ross in a 
chair drawn by one horse, and that he handed her out of it. 
Some of the other witnesses say she came in a four-wheel 
chair, others a four-wheel carriage. In this respect Walsh 
also varies from the rest of the evidences. Mrs. Heath says 
that Lady Altham positively directed the coachman to go easy 
that it might be late when she came to Ress. This tallies 
with what the other witnesses swear in that respect, that it 
was duskish and late in the evening when Lady Altham came 
to Ross (the day she left Dunmaine), consequently she must 
come there after dinner time. So that if there be any reliance 
on the testimony of the plaintiff's other witnesses Walsh in 
this particular must be looked upon as a made witness, and 
not to be credited. It is very observable how convincing 
the proofs are on the side of the defendant, whereas those 
for the plaintiff are incompatible and sap the foundation 
whereon they build. 

For dressing up the story at Dunmaine Joan Laffan is pro- 
duced. Joan Landy was judged by the plaintiff to be an 
improper witness ; therefore Mrs. Laffan, the dry nurse 
(because she is supposed to have more cunning), is brought 
to supply the want of the evidence of Landy, the wet nurse. 
Laffan at first said she came into the service in 1716, but 
afterwards recollected herself that it was in harvest, 1715. 
Though this was a small mistake it was found material to 
correct it ; yet still her testimony cannot be reconciled but 
by her coming into the service in 1716, which makes truth 
break out to show the improbability of her evidence. If 
Laffan came into the service in 171G it would overreach the 
time given in evidence by Doyle and Murphy, therefore she 
must say the child was three months old at her coming into 
the family in 1715. It is clear that this piece of her 
evidence was introduced in this y)eriod to give a sanction to 
the other witnesses, Doyle and Murphy. 

I would beg leave to ask how coul<l the plaintiff's witnesses 
know how a nobleman's child was to be dressed? It is plain 

267 



The Anncsley Case. 



Serjeant tliis point was settled bc'loro they came on the table to be 
* °"® examined, but the manner in which they delivered in their 
evidences and their very looks betrayed a conscious guilt. 

Laffan says she was a chambermaid in the service at Ross, 
and that the child was about a year and a half in the whole 
under her care before the sejiaration, and that Charles Meagher, 
the butler, brought the child to Kinneu. Ilolph says he 
did not leave the service till about Christmas, 1715. It is 
easily discerned how consistently Kolph gave his evidence; 
his quarrel with the gardener, his going into the guards, and 
the time of his encamjiment must make such impressions on 
his mind that he must have remembered it. But Doyle and 
Murphy falsify each other, and Laifan contradicts them, aa 
I shall show immediately. So that I humbly conceive their 
evidence ought to be rejected. 

If the child was in Laffan's care for a year and a half, 
and that she came into the service in August, 1715, then all 
her care of the child must cease at least before July or August, 

1717. Now, my lords, it is not pretended that Lord Altham 
went to Kinnea till the year 1718. If what Laffan says be 
true, that the child was taken from her and sent to Lord 
Altham's to Kinnea, then there is a chasm of a year, from 
1717 to 1718, not accounted for, which cannot be filled up 
but by supposing that Laoffan came into the service in the 
year 1716. So that I say the circumstance of her coming 
into the service in the year 1715 cannot reconcile her evidence ; 
but in 1716 might answer to the child's going to Kinnea in 

1718. That, however, would not correspond with her dry 
niu'sing of the child before the separation. I appeal therefore 
to your lordships, what dependence there can be on Laffan's 
testimony. 

Lord Altham's taking the child to his lordship's house, 
and his kindness to him at Kinnea and Carrickduff, is a 
circimistance of no moment to show the legitimacy of the 
lessor of the plaintiff, in regard it is common to noblemen 
who have no lawful issue to give their children genteel educa- 
tion and keep them in a grand manner. God forbid that 
instances of that kind should obtrude an heir on the family. 
It is easily accountable by the plaintiff's evidences that the 
child was brought into the house after the separation and 
afterwards maintained by Lord Altham, and might be reputed 
by some as his lawful son ; but if the birth be not proved all 
the rest of his evidence must fall to the gi'ound. The 
defendant has proved that Lord Altham frequently wished that 
his illegitimate son was legitimate in order to cut out liis 
brother. Therefore, supposing the declarations of Lord 
Altham's to be admitted, that can never be a sufficient induce- 
ment to believe the lessor of the plaintiff his lawful son. And 
268 



Speeches. 



it is very obvious that if Lord Altham introduced him by the Serjeant 
manner of expression, " This is my Lawful son," as pretended ''*^°"^ 
by the plaintiff's -witnesses, it is so uncommon a way of speak- 
ing that it supposes a suspicion of his illegitimacy. 

I shall now proceed to the evidence in Proper Lane. Jolin 
Byrne, the father, and Thomas Byrne, the son, and Patrick 
Plunket, produced as witnesses for the plaintiff, say that 
Mr. James Annesley was reputed the lawful son of my Lord 
Altham. Thomas Byrne says that the lessor of the plaintiff 
came to him in a mean condition in September, 1724, and 
that he concealed the lessor of the plaintiff for six weeks in 
his father's house. It appears by the testimony of Waldroii 
that he went to school with him in Warborough Street, to one 
Dimn; and Dunn says that from September, 1724, to the Easter 
following he was at his school. So that his testimony and 
Thomas Byrne's do not square together. Dunn said he 
called him the young Loid Altham during that time ; but if 
Byrne be believed he was then in the lowest condition, a poor 
boy destitute of aU relief. 

Lord Altham's behaviour after his leaving Proper Lane is 
the strongest proof that the lessor of the plaintiff" w-as not his 
lawful son. Is it to be conceived that a father would throw 
off his lawful son at the age of about eight or nine years, and 
expose him as a vagabond, when the child is incapable of com- 
mitting an offence that could deserve such punishment? The 
natural ties of blood must be supposed to operate, and it 
cannot be conceived that any man of the least humanity couTd 
be guilty of an act of that kind. But this conduct of a father 
may be reconciled in the case of a bastard, because he at first 
may believe that he was his son, and afterwards may be in- 
duce<:l to I>elieve the contrary ; and the boy's being so in- 
con-igible, as appeared in proof, might have some influence to 
raise doubts in his mind. But if he had any apprehension 
that he was his lawful son, the heir to his estate and titles, 
surely it is impossible to imagine he would see him so 
abandoned. 

It was gieatly to the advantage of the late Lord Altham to 
have a son. He had a remainder in tail in a great part of 
the Anglesea estate, expectant on the estate for life of Earl 
Arthur, who had no issue ; and if he had a son he could have 
l).irre<l the remainder by levying a fine, and it wouM have 
been his interest to have done it, because his loidship could 
then make a Ix^tter title to a purchaser; but if he die<l without 
a son the remainrler over would take place, and consequently the 
estate would be the worse to a purchaser. But now let us see 
how the case would stand if Lord Altham had a lawful son. 
My lord, then, could have raised money by sale of rovorsions, 
in regard that the carl was but tenant for life ; and it is well 

269 



rhe Annesley Case. 



Serjeant known tJiat bis having such a son must have procured him 
Malone esteem and resj)ect as well as profit, it being natural to show 
greater regard to those who are likely to transmit their estates 
and ties to their own descendants. And it must create an 
additional ix^spect to his lordship to consider, if he had such 
a son, and should happen to sm-vive the late Lord Anglesea, 
that he might with his concui'rence dispose of his own and the 
Anglesea estate. Let the point of law be what it will, it 
appears by Colonel Wall (having taken opinion of counsel 
thereon) that Lord Altham, in 1725, thought it would be of 
infinite service to him to have a son that he might thereby 
enlai-ge his fortune ; and while he was possessed with this 
belief, and in such a necessitous condition at that time, if he 
had any apprehension that there was a notion that he had a 
son and heir, would it not have been a good opportunity for 
him to take the child into his care and impose him on the 
public as his legitimate son when he knew the enlargements 
of his power in that case? Or, if he had a legitimate son 
which he might think proper to conceal for some time before, 
surely, then (as he judged it so much his interest to have a 
son), he would have declared it to the whole kingdom. There- 
fore his not doing so is the strongest circumstance to prove 
that he had none. 

There is another weighty circumstance which must strike 
every person that hears this affair. Lady Altham was in 
Dublin from the year 1719 to 1724, when the boy was wan- 
dering about the streets in the greatest distress, and no appli- 
cation w^as made to her ladyship for the boy. Sm-ely if he 
imagined he was her son he would have applied to her in such 
indigence. Moreover, Lady Altham lived at Ross three or 
four years, and in Dublin for four or five years, and never 
even mentioned the name of a son, except to Mrs. Margaret 
Hodgers, who was in the Temple before my time, and is better 
known by some of the gentlemen of the other side than she is 
to me ; but her evidence must be an idle stoi-y. Mrs. Pegg 
Hodgers tells you she never saw her ladyship but once, and 
yet she comes into the room to Alderman King's, makes a low 
curtesy,* and immediately after my Lady Altham (who had 
never exchanged a word with her before) enters into conversa- 
tion with her, tells Mrs. Hodgers that her ladyship had a child, 
and that you have better luck than I have; which appears to 
be very improbable. Lady Altham (as appears by Alderman 
King's testimony) lodged and dieted with him for about thirteen 
months, and frequently discoursed with him about her family 



* Hereupon the Prime Serjeant imitated Mrs. Hodgers in a curtesy, and 
Lord Chief l^aron smilingly said, "You have added a curtesy, Mr. Prime 
Serjeant, gracefully to her evidence." 



270 



Speeches. 



affairs, and never made mention of a son to liim ; and I believe Serjeant 
it wHl not be denied, but he deserves more credit than Mrs. °"® 
Hodgers. I would observe to your lordships that Alderman 
King gives a very good account of the behaviour of Mrs. Heath, 
and this is a strong reason that she is to be believed before 
Mrs. Hodgers. 

Mrs. Elizabeth M'Mullen, a witness examined for the de- 
fendant, says she was acquainted with Lady Altham for about 
seven or eight years, and frequently conversed with her lady- 
ship whilst she lodged at her hou^e, yet she never mentioned 
anything of a son to her, nor did she ever hear she had a son. 
And when my lady was apprised of the death of Lord Altham 
by Mrs. M'Mullen's letter to Mrs. Heath (dated 18th of 
December, 1727), yet Lady Altham never took notice of a son, 
and, notwithstanding she survived Lord Altham for two years, 
yet she never so much as spoke of a son. Though she was 
disordered in her limbs, her understanding and memory were 
not in the least impaired, for Mrs. Heath said she retained her 
senses to the last day of her death. Lady Altham was sup- 
ported by the late Duke of Buckingham during his life, and 
by his duchess after his death ; and her ladyship well knew 
she had friends who would be glad to support the birthright 
of her child if she had any ; but as no such thing has ever 
appeared, and as nothing to that purpose has been offered in 
proof, it is obvious to human reason that her ladyship never 
had a child. 

The transportation and prosecution are the only colours for 
this suit, which, were they out of the question, I dare venture 
to say that this cause would be hooted out of Com-t. But, 
gentlemen of the inry, I would beg leave to observe that 
suspicions of misconduct should not be a reason to judge of 
a matter of fact. Whoever is governed by suspicion must be 
governed by error. Misbehaviour may create a suspicion, 
but the fact proving the clearness of property should not in- 
tervene with suspicion, nor should be of weight against positive 
evidence, consequently ought to have no influence in deter- 
mining this cause, and I cannot help saying it was cooked 
up to give credit to the story, for it is most likely that the 
boy indentured voluntarily, and that the defendant did not 
transport him against his own will. 

Dominick Farrell, a witness for the plaintiff, sets out aa 
soeming to ho a gentleman of credit and figure by his visits to 
Dunmaine. There ho says be saw the lady dandle and treat 
the child ; but his testimony cannot be true, because ho says 
he Haw the child in Dunmaine in 1717 or 1718, yet the separa- 
tion haf)pcno<l in February, 1716. Farrell, my lords, is 
ufihfTcd in previously to the transportation to show that it was 
he recommende<^l the boy to Purcell, and how charitably Purcell 

271 



The Anncsley Case. 



Serjeant Ix'haved to the lK)y. 1 must own it is not common to seo in- 
^ °"® stances of humanity from a but<)her to support the child of 
another person out of mere cliarity. However, I shall only 
observe some contradictions in the testimony of Farrell from 
the plaintiff's other witnesses. He widely differs from them 
as to the perio<l of time of his seeing the child in Dunmaine in 
1718; and ho likewise varies from Purcell in other particulars. 
Fari^ell says he called the boy when ho saw him riding in Smith- 
field : and Purcell says the boy was talking to Farrell when he 
first saw him. Purcell says the boy was present, and Farrell 
says the contrary. Farrell swears it will be eleven years next 
Christmas since he went first to Cork to live, and that the 
boy was at Purcell's when he went there, and a year and a half 
in Purcell's care, and therein he stands falsified by the rest 
of the witnesses. 

It is very improbable that an attempt should be made to 
kidnap the boy at Purcell's, and that Purcell should not apply 
to a magistrate, especially when he believed that further 
attempts were intended to be made; and it adds to this im- 
probability that he, who was so fond of the child, should never 
make any inquiry for him after he pai'ted from his house. 
Purcell says, further, that he educated him as his own lx>y, 
and that the boy called his wife mistress, which seems very 
strange that Purcell would admit him so to do, he being told 
by FarreU that he was son to Lord Altham; and it likewise 
seems somew^hat odd that the boy would leave Purcell's (where 
he was used with so much kindness) unknown to him, and 
without any provocation given by Pui'cell, to wander about the 
streets. But there can be no dependence on the weakness of 
such evidence. 

As to the transportation, the account given of it is very im- 
probable ; that the defendant, then Lord Altham, would in his 
usual dress, when he could have disguised himself, and at noon- 
day, direct the boy to be carried near the very stall 
where Purcell was, who was the boy's only support and best 
friend, and a mob to rise by means thereof, yet that no notice 
should be taken of him. Can it be believed that if the de- 
fendant could be capable of such an attempt that he would be 
such a fool to choose that time of the day for his purpose, when 
it might l>e done at any other time without mnning such hazai'd 
or danger? 

Now, let us see how the witnesses for the transportation 
coincide with each other. Byrne, the constable, swears that 
the boy was put into the boat in a quai-ter of an hour after 
he came to George's Quay, and that the defendant appeared 
publicly on the quay. Reilly, the servant, swears defendant 
was on the quay when he sent him to bon-ow the guinea ; and 
that he stayed for about an hour and a quarter, or an hour and 
272 



Speeches. 



a half, aud at his return found defendant still on the quay ; Serjeant 
and as Inchicore (the place where he got the guinea) is near ^'°"® 
three miles distant from the quay it must be reasonably sup- 
posed Reilly took more time than he reckons going to and 
coming from thence. It was said that Donnelly went first 
into the boat, and afterwards it was said my lord went 
first, and Donnelly last. If these witnesses are not to be 
believed in the whole, they should not be believed in part, and 
as Byrne and Reilly differ about the time it must bring an 
imputation on their credit. 

The next proof of the transportation is the books of the late 
Mr. Stephenson and the Tholsel books. From the latter it 
may be concluded that James Annesley transported himself as 
a servant, for there the name of James Hennesley is found, 
who appears to be indentured ; and though the name of 
Hennesley is not entered in Stephenson's book, yet, notwith- 
standing, it must be supposed that Hennesley and Annesley is 
one identical person, because Hennesley is among the names 
of those who went with the same master and the same ship 
which is entered in Stephenson's books. This wUl appear the 
more probable, as they are names of almost an equal sound ; 
for He is sometimes pronounced like Ha — for instance, Hert- 
fordshire is pronounced Hartfordshire ; and Ha sometimes 
sounded like A alone ; the surname Henderson pronounced 
Anderson. It may be very well presumed that Hennesley and 
Annesley is one and the same person ; and the probability 
weighs that the lessor of the plaintiff was tired of wandering 
and strolling about the streets here and therefore transported 
himself beyond ho seas. 

Now, I shall observe to your lordships the evidence of Mr. 
Giffard with respect to the prosecution, but as it has been 
already animadverted on when he was on the table, I shall 
trouble your lordships but with very little with regard to 
him. This gentleman comes voluntarily to betray his client, 
who could not be compelled by a process from a foreign 
kingdom, and therefore no stress should be laid on his testi- 
mony. If there had been any method used to oblige him to 
discover the secrets of his client there might be some induce- 
ment to give him credit, but when he appears here in another 
light it must be supposed there hangs some bias on his mind. 
Ho owns that Ix)rd Anglesoa provoked him because there were 
dinputea between them on account of bills of cost; and as 
Giffard has shown a resentment on that occasion, ho cannot 
be said to be an uninfluenced witness, and though he might 
l>e employed by the defendant in the prosecution when no 
improper means were made use of, the defendant cannot be 
said fitri<:tly to l)c guilty of a crime. Indeed, it is very 
improbable that the defendant could be eo weak as to make 
• 273 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant such declarations* to Giffard, and thus having put himself in 
Malone i^jg power, to fall out with him for so small a sum as £200. 

I am sorry to mention what contrivances there have been 
made us© of to throw dirt at the defendant, and no art has been 
omitte<l to take away the credit of his evidence. A bill has 
been tiled against Mrs, Heath to discover Lady Altham's 
effects, which was purely calculated in order to prevent her 
from being examined on behalf of the defendant. Why was 
a lieutenancy offered to llolph? The tendency of it is easily 
seen through, to induce circumstances of suspicions. The Earl 
of Angelsea was then in great distress, being involved in so 
many suits, by which he was perhaps actuated with resent- 
ment; and a man thus enraged may possibly say things 
contraiy to his sentiments, which on proper reflection may fill 
him with concern. He was then inflamed with passion, and 
might probably think a proposal of a sum of money might 
extricate him from his difficulties. However, Giffard is but 
a single witness, and not free from influence, but truth is not 
to be controlled by suspicions. 

My lords, I fear I have taken up too much of your time, 
and of the gentlemen of the jury. I shall now conclude by 
observing to your lordships that no man can be safe in his 
property if a child thus trumped up is to trip up the heels of 
the rightful heir to the family, because a precedent of this kind 
might be attended with the most dangerous consequence to 
every gentleman's family ; for if it should at any time happen 
that a man should have a child born out of wedlock who by 
some means or other might fall into the hands of artful men, 
he might set up some pretensions in prejudice to the lawful 
heir by the same plan, and by such evidence as is cooked 
up for the lessor of the plaintiff. Therefore, to prevent any 
such impositions on the public, and to deter all adventurers 
from engaging in such practices so destructive to society in 
general, and for the sake of justice, I hope the gentlemen of 
the jury will give a verdict for the defendant. 

Solicitor- Mr. Solicitor-Genebal, counsel for the defendant — My lords, 
General ^-^^ evidence on both sides has been so fully spoken to and so 
clearly stated by Mr. Prime Serjeant that I shall only trouble 
your lordships and the gentlemen of the jury (who have the 
greatest estate in their disposal that was ever tried by any 
jury) with some observations on the evidence produced on 
behalf of the plaintiff. 

The Lord and Lady Altham were mamed very early, and 
cohabited a long time in England without having a child. 
They separated for some time, and in 1713 were re-imited. 
Before the re-union no proof has been attempted to be mad© 
by the plaintiff that Lady Altham was a fruitful woman ; 
274 



Speeches. 

but after the reconciliation, in order to support a pretended SoUeitor- 
birth, it must be thought necessary fii'st to prove her lady- 
ship's fruitfulness by two supposed miscarriages. The 
evidence of Mrs. Cole is endeavoured to be applied for proof 
of the first miscarriage, which, she says, was occasioned by 
the china saucers being thrown by Lord Altham. But the 
improbability of her evidence is very clear in regard that 
the saucers were levelled at the butler and not at my lady; 
how could her ladyship be displeased at what was intended to 
her as a compliment? Moreover, as it does not appear at 
that time there was any cause of quarrel between my lord 
and lady, so there could' not be a presumption of a fright, or 
consequently of a miscarriage. The accoimt Mrs. Bates gives 
of the first miscarriage is absurd ; the bare mention of it 
is sufficient to reject it. Is it probable that my Lady Altham, 
who is proved by plaintiS's witnesses to be a proud, exalted 
woman, would admit such an ordinary, mean servant to be so 
familiar to put her hand on her ladyship's belly? 

Mrs. Doyle (the chambermaid) and Murphy (the laundry- 
maid) must next come on to prove the pretended birth at 
Dunmaine, yet not one person of the family must either know 
or hear anything in relation thereto. The rule of reason ia 
to prove great things by great persons and low things by low 
persons, and every proof ought to be adapted to the nature 
of the thing. It has appeared that in the year 1715 the 
Earl of Angiesea was so afflicted with the gout that Lord Altham 
apprehended his life was despaired of, and it was judged by 
most people he could not live long. Lord Angiesea then 
resided in that part of the country, and had no prospect of 
having any issue, yet he never heard of the Lady Altham's 
having a child to be heir to the title and estate of his family. 
Doyle and Murphy swear they lived in the house of Dunmaine 
at the time of the birth, and here they stand contradicted 
by Rolph, whom they said they never knew to live there, 
though he was the butler at the time they would pretend 
the child was born. Every one of the witnesses for the plaintiff, 
except Doyle, say that Joan Landy was not married till after 
the birth, but Doyle says she was married before the birth, 
consequently sho should be looked upon as a made 
witness. Murphy contradicts herself as to the time of the 
eclipse. She swears she was then at Madam Butler's at 
Robs, consequently she could not be at Dunmaine at the time 
prefixed for the birth ; so unless we suppose her in two places 
at one and the same time, her evidence must be repugnant to 
truth. 

Breen (a lalxjurer's son) and Brooks (a yxitty surgeon) are 
the next witnesses for this pretended birth. Brooks says he 
bled Lady Altham just before her delivery. I l)€lieve, my 

275 



The Annesley Case. 



Solicitor- lords, it is very unusual for women to be let blood on such 
General occasions , Brooks very modestly tells you he was but a 
piece of a surg<.H)u, and I fear he Avas but a veiy indifferent 
one, otherwise ho would not ventui'o to bleed in the dark 
(without a candle). Mr. Sutton, a very eminent surgeon, 
who was well acquainted with the family, and lived in the 
town of Ross, wag not sent for. The quack was preferred to 
him. How reconcilable this can be, I appeal to your lordships. 
Christopher Brown is produced by the plaintiff as to proof 
of the pretended christening. He had his lesson to be exact 
as to the godfathers, but cannot tell any other person ia 
comj)any though he waited at table that day. He describes 
the great hall where he dined, yet it appears by Scott there 
is no such hall in the house. But, my lords, it is plain that 
the only way of detecting these evidences is to take them 
out of the road they were instructed in, and by other cir- 
cumstances the inconsistency of their testimony is shown. 
When Brown was asked to name any of the servants that 
dined with him, he could not tell. It is needless in me to 
remark how improperly he gave his evidence ; your lordships 
must have it on your memories. 

The transaction at Wexford Assizes has appeared to your 
lordships, and the defendant has proved vei*y fully the Lady 
Altham's being there at that time. If that be true, as appears 
from the circumstances (w'hich they mentioned) of the Lord 
and Lady Altham's going there, to wit, that my lady and 
Mrs. Giflfard went in a coach, m}' lord rode, Mrs. Heath rode, 
and such and such servants rode, I say then there was no 
appearance of a child. Thus, consequently, the pretended 
birth must be overturned. To disprove this Mr. Colclough 
is produced. He was then on the grand jury, and so engaged 
that he did not notice the Lady Altham ; and though it is 
allowed Lord Altham was there, he owns he did not see him. 
By the very same reason Lady Altham and Mrs. Giffard might 
be there, and possibly have escaped his sight. 

I shall not trouble your lordships with respect to Major 
Fitzgerald. He stands opposite to all the other witnesses in 
point of time as to the supposed birth. 

I beg leave to observe to your lordships that Higginson'e 
evidence is attended with a good deal of doubt and imcer- 
tainty. He said he was at Dunmaine, and that Lady Altham 
(whom he never saw before) called to him and gave him a 
glass of wine, and he drank to her safe delivery. If the 
plaintiff thought him so material a witness, how comes it 
that his name was not given in at the beginning of this trial 
among the list of the plaintiff's other witnesses, and not to 
intrude him at the close thereof without the defendant's know- 
ledge? It is plain he was only produced to stop a gap. From 
276 



Speeches. 



such kind of evidence the jury can discern on which side the Solieitor- 
probability lies. General 

My lords, it appears (from a previous application to Mrs. 
Heath) how sensible the plaintiff was of the force of her 
evidence, and therefore a bill was thought proper to be filed 
for prevention thereof ; which plainly demonstrates that the 
lessor of the plaintiff was afraid of his pretensions being affected 
by the weight of her testimony. One Hussoy has attempted 
to contradict Mrs. Heath. He says he spent most of his time 
in England, and he flourishes so genteely on himself in his 
examination that one should take him for a gentleman of 
figure and distinction. He teUs you that he ordered his 
servants to put up the person's horse who served him with a 
subpoena ; that he has vouchsafed to come up to Dublin ; that 
he had an employ in one of His Majesty's yachts in England ; 
and when this affair is discussed he is only a common waiter 
to the Board of Green Cloth, and his religion prevented him 
from being entitled to a commission ; and though he gives you 
an axjoount of Mrs. Heath's changing her sentiments at the 
second conference differently from the first, yet he never re- 
marked the same to her. But it is easily seen to what purpose 
he is examined, for when the stratagem of a bill could not 
take place this knight-errant (if one may call him so) is pro- 
duced, having no other expedient to control Mrs. Heath's 
evidence. 

I must say it is next to an impossibility to imagine that 
Lord Altham, who had a private estate of his own and the 
expectancy of the Lord Anglesea's estate, should have a legiti- 
mate son and heir, and that the Pallisers (who were acquainted 
in the family), or that Mr. or Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Elms, or 
Mrs. Giffard, who (as plaintiff's witnesses confess), visited Lady 
Altham, should know nothing thereof; nay, that even the 
neighbouring tenants must be strangers to it. How can it be 
reconciled to the common rules of prudence and good-nature 
that, if Lady Altham had a son, she should send the child to 
be nursed by a mean woman of an ill-repute, by a woman 
who had criminal commerce with her husband? Surely a 
lady of her rank and distinction would not have made choice 
of such a nurse. It is plain, then, that the supposed birth 
must bo only a fiction complicated with absurdities. 

We allow that the lessor of the plaintiff might be Lord 
Altham 's son by Joan Landy, and tbat Lady Altham, conceiv- 
ing a displeasure against her, and being incensed agaiiisi Lord 
Altham for the dishonour done her, would not admit Juggy 
Landy in the house of Dunmaine, and thia seems the most 
rational way of judging. 

Laffan, Murphy, and Doyle toll us that a new room was 

277 



The Anncslcy Case. 



Solicitor- furnished in Landy'a house, and tho child sent thither to bo 

General ums^^(j j^ is equally improbable that Lord and Lady Altham 

should not have more care and tenderness for a son bom to 

8uoh honours and titles than to send him to a new-built room, 

or to subject an infant to a cold and other disorders. 

It is very manifest, my lords, how ingenious the conductors 
of this affair have contrived it, to have fixed on persons to be 
Sfvousors who are long since dead ; and though they have cooked 
up a story as artfully as they could, they could not still frame 
it free from improbability. We find that the sponsors were 
not equal to the birth, and one of the godfathers, Mr. Anthony 
Colclough, was a Roman Catholic. If my Lord Altham had 
a son by his lady it is presumed he would not have pitched 
on a papist to be godfather, who by the laws of this kingdom 
is not qualified to stand surety for a Protestant child in 
baptism. At the time of this pretended christening the Duke 
of Buckingham was then living ; Lord Haversham and the late 
Earl of Anglesea were alive ; tlie Duchess of Buckingham was 
alive ; they were relations to the family, and would not refuse 
being sponsors, but would have readily offered themselves on 
that occasion ; so that I say, my lords, fiction detects itself 
through the whole affair. 

I would take notice to your lordships that the late Lord 
Altham happened to be somewhat extravagant, which occasioned 
his want of money, and therefore proposed selling the Altham 
estate. If his lordship had a son he could have made a better 
title to purchasers, as Mr. Prime Serjeant observed. 

The two props which support this cause are the transporta- 
tion and prosecution, but the title here contended for by the 
plaintiff ought to be proved beyond all contradiction, and I would 
beg leave, my lords, to remind your lordships and the gentlemen 
of the jury that on the death of the late Lord Altham the 
Altham estate devolved to the late Earl of Anglesea, and nothing 
descended to the defendant but the title. And therefore I 
would observe as to the transportation, that as it appears the 
lessor of the plaintiff wandered about the streets in an idle 
w^ay, it is most likely he voluntarily transported himself. If 
the defendant apprehended he was to come into possession of 
the Altham estate, after the death of his brother, there might 
be some reason offered for the kidnapping, but as the defendant, 
the Earl of Anglesea, could reap no advantage by so strange a 
proceeding, the thing appears very improbable and romantic. 

The Duke and Duchess of Buckingham and Lord Anglesea 
were alive when the late Lord Altham died, and it cannot be 
supposed, if he had a son, but that they would have been 
glod to have taken care of him, and that be might receive a 
proper education suitable to his high rank and quality. I 
humbly apprehend there is another incident very proper for 
278 



Speeches. 



the consideration of the jui-y, that is, that the Lady Altham Soiieitop- 
continued in Dublin for about five months after Lord Altham's ''®"^''*' 
death. It is surprising, if she had a son, she should make 
no opposition to the defendant's taking the title of Lord 
Altham, or that some of his noble relations should not have 
asserted his right. Another circumstance occurs in this affair, 
that if Lady Altham left a son it may be presumed that some 
of the gentlemen who took leases from the late Earl of Anglesea, 
of the Altham estate, would have been glad to have set him 
up either in point of charity or humanity, or perhaps out of 
aversion to the late Lord Anglesea. 

We may infer from Mr. Tighe's behaviour to Mr. Annesley 
that he did not believe he was the son of the Lady Altham. 
He is a gentleman of character, and it cannot be supposed that 
any man susceptible of the least generosity or good nature, if 
he had any apprehension of the plaintiff's legitimacy, would 
admit him to be a turn-spit or wear a livery. ]\Ioreover, 
Mr. Tighe, by his profession, being bred to the law, must know 
what proper steps were to be taken by the lessor of the plaintiff, 
if he was Lord Altham's son, to recover his right, but his not 
troubling himself about that matter is a strong presumption 
he had judged him to be what he had heard, the natural son 
of the late Lord Altham. 

My lords, as this is a cause of the greatest consequence that 
ever was tried by any jury, it must be a singular pleasm^e to 
every person concerned (and I am sure it is so to me) that 
jurors of such worth, honour, and probity at this time are to 
determine an affair of such importance ; and as nothing but 
justice can influence the minds of gentlemen of such distinction 
I hope they will find a verdict for the defendant. 

Eaton Stanyard, Esq., counsel for the defendant^ — My lords E. stanyard 
and gentlemen of the jury, the question to be considered is, 
whether Lady Altham ever had a son? And, if she had, 
whether Mr. Annesley, the lessor of the plaintiff, is that person? 
And if this cannot be proved clearly, the jury cannot rely on 
presumptions. 

My lords, it was thought proper to introduce two mis- 
carriages previous to the birth. The plaintiff pretends to 
assign as a cause of the first miscarriage the breaking the 
china saucers. This piece of evidence appears very improbable, 
because destroying the cups was intended a resjiect to my 
lady. Can it be conceived, my lords, that Lord Altham, who 
was Ko solicitous for a son and heir by my lady, would not 
be more c;nitious of putting her into frights which miglft 
endanger a miscarriage? It is sufficient to destroy the cre<lit 
of Mrs. Cole that the account she gavo of the abortion should 
be communicated to a young child. As to the second mis- 

279 



The Annesley Case. 



B. starjrapd carriage, there can bo no colour to have the least reliance on 
the testimony of Catharine MacCormick in isupport of it. It 
has appeared tliat Mis. Blake is a relation to the family, and 
visited Lady Altham in Dublin at the time MacCormick pretends 
the second miscarriage happened, yet my lady never told her 
a word of it. Mrs. Hannah Shaw swore that Catharine 
MacCormick mentioned to her that Lady Altham never had a 
child, and MacCormick further signified to Mrs. Shaw how 
application was made to her by a person who used to get evi- 
dences for the lessor of the plaintiff. Therefore MacCormick's 
evidence can have no weight, and, if proved to be false, brings 
a disrej)uto on all the rest of the evidences. 

Now, let us see how this pretended birth is proved. The 
plaintiff's witnesses say that a midwife was sent for to Ross, 
and that Dennis Redmonds was the person pitched upon for that 
errand. Can it be presumed that if Lady Altham was in that 
condition care would not be taken that a midwife should be in 
the house some time before the birth, and not be under the 
necessity of sending for one the moment she was in labour? 
Tliere was nobody to assist her but Mrs. Heath, and none 
attended her ladyship but a chambermaid and a laundry maid. 
Every expectation, my lords, from such a birth would induce 
bett-er attendants and more proper nurse tenders. It is sur- 
prising that Redmonds should not know for what purpose he 
was sent, and that he should leave the midwife in the yard 
without taking any further notice of her, and go immediately 
to the stable to take care of his horse, which it seems he regarded 
more than the midwife. As to Brooks' testimony, it is a heap 
of nonsense and absurdity. He swore he was a piece of a 
surgeon for forty-seven years, and was so ten years before the 
birth of the child, and yet is but fifty years old. He after- 
wards said, when he was cross-examined, that he practised 
surgeiy since he was four years old ; and says he did not con- 
sider what quantity of blood he had taken from Lady Altham. 
He said he had a farm at a place called Fareen, near Ross, yet 
no gentleman of that neighbourhood knew of any such man 
living there. Besides, this must be attended with all imagin- 
able inconsistency. It was uncertain to meet him at home, 
but there was a certainty of meeting a surgeon in Ross, and 
one better skilled in his profession. So that on the whole, 
what regard can be paid, my lords, to evidence so diametrically 
opfKisite to all the rules of probability? 

Turner is a witness not to be credited; the manner of his 
faltering in his examination induces a suspicion. He fixes 
the time of the eclipse ten months after it happened, but it 
seems he was not prepared to give any answer to that period. 
So that we find when these witnesses are taken out of their 
course they are at a loss what answer to give. Scott says he 
280 



Speeches. 



used to come to Dunmaine with how-do-yous in inquiring after e. Stanyard 

the child's health, and that he delivered messages to Laffan, 

and sometimes to Rolph ; and that Rolph was butler at the 

birth of the child, though Eolph and Laffan swore they never 

saw one another before the day of their examination. In tine, 

he stands in opposition to the plaintiff's other tribe of witnesses 

about Rolph being in Dunmaine at the time of the birth. 

Mrs. Giffard's testimony is supported by the servants of 
the family, that Lady Altham was at Wexford Assizes, and 
lodged at one Sweeny's. Mr. John Kerr has proved the time 
of the assizes, and that Lord Chief Justice Foster went that 
circuit. This is a circumstance very material, and that en- 
tirely overturns the plaintiff's whole system, for by the 
plaintiff's evidence she must be with child or lying-in at 
that time, which cannot be true, because she was then in 
Wexford. And Lady Altham could not be brought to bed in 
May subsequent to the assizes, because she was on the 28th of 
that month (being the birthday of King George the First) in 
Dublin. I must beg leave to say that Mr. Colclough did not 
destroy a tittle of what Mrs. Giffard swore, for he said he did 
not see Lord Altham then at Wexford ; yet Higginson paid his 
lordship £20 there, and Mr. Colclough might as probably have 
overlooked Lady Altham thtre as his lordship. 

Mary Doyle and Eleanor Mui'phy are quite contrary to one 
another in point of evidence. Doyle says the child was 
christened in the big parlour, and Murphy swears it was in 
the yellow room up one pair of stairs. As to Higginson, it is 
plain he is produced as a witness to intersperse false facts 
with real ones ; he says he only received the rents of the estate 
near Nanny Water, but not of the Ross estate. He describes 
part of Lady Altham's dress ; that she wore a white apron 
and a wHite handkerchief, and adds that her ladyship was big 
with child. Is it probable, my lords, that she would come 
do^vn two pair of stairs and call for wine for him, and all 
this while he wns on horseback, and would not even vouchsafe 
to pay her ladyship the common compliment by alighting? 
Nay, it can't l)e presumed that a lady of her liigh spirit would 
come down stairs, but would have chosen on such an occasion 
to send her servant. I must repeat it, that here a false fact 
is tacked to a real fact by the ingenuity of the managers to 
give a colour to the fiction. 

I come now, my lords, to the testimony of Catherine O'Neill, 
which I can't help calling a scone of iniquity. She says 
she went to Lady Altham in Cross Lane, in Dulilin, and fold 
hor the circiimstances of tho child. Is it natural to imagine 
that a lady Host to all comfoi-t, Injing then sejiaratcd from JxiitI 
Altham) should be told that her only son was l)egging about the 
streets, and would neither intpiirf uor send for him? This 

281 



The Anncsley Case. 

B. Stanyard witness says, further, that her ladyship's reason for not ad- 
mitting any of the servants to cari*y the child to see her was 
for fear it might occasion them to lose their places. Can it 
be presumed that a distressed mother would set a greater 
regard on what might have happened to a servant than on the 
welfare of her only child, or that she would have neglected him 
in that manner? No, my lords, the direct contrary must be 
supposed, and that she would have been glad to see him at 
any risk, that proper care might be taken of him. But Alder- 
man King's testimony clears it up — that my lady had no son, 
for if she had she would most certainly, some time or other, 
have spoken of it while she lodged at the Alderman's. And 
would it not be the greatest satisfaction to herself, in case 
she had a son, to bring him to England along with her? The 
Duke and Duchess of Buckingham and all her relations in 
England would have received with pleasure and educated with 
great care a son who might in time by his rank and fortune be- 
come conspicuous. Besides, her interest, as well as nature, would 
have induced her to it, for, after the death of the late Lord 
Altham, Lady Altham might become guardian to the child. 
She had a natural right to that trust, and out of great estates 
large allowances are given to those who are entrusted with the 
care of children, and where such a trust devolves on a parent, 
otherwise indifferently provided for, that incident is of some 
weight with a Court of equity to be more liberal in their allow- 
ance. These considerations might be additional motives to 
induce her to take care of his education and espouse his ihteresfc, 
and as none of these things appeared in evidence, it is contrary 
to aU reason in the world to imagine that the lessor of the 
plaintiff can be the real or legitimate son of Lord and Lady 
Altham. 

As to the transportation, your lordships will please to observe 
that Crommy swears that Skellem made entries in Stephenson's 
books, for fear of being imposed upon, of the several persons 
that went aboard, and that the clerk came aboard and took a 
list of all persons, and called them over on board before the 
ship sailed, and every person walked by as he answered to his 
name ; and though the boy might answer to the name of 
Annesley, the master of the ship might pronounce it Hennesley, 
and write it so; and when he went to the " Tholsel " to give 
in the names to Mr. Gonne, the town-clerk, he might spell the 
name Hennesley instead of Annesley, and thereby occasion a 
mistake in the '' Tholsel " book. But can any one pretend to 
say, if the boy was forced away, that when Mr. Skellern, the 
clerk, came on board to take the names, the boy would not 
have complained of his misfortunes and of his being taken away 
by force, or made some clamour, and then he might have been 
282 



Speeches. 



redressed ? Yet it has never appeared that the plaintiff made E. Stanyard 
any such complaints. 

It is very evident, my lords, that no industry has been 
wanting in the plaintiff to seek out for witnesses in order to 
deprive the defendant of their testimony. How comes it that 
a dinner of lamb and other victuals has been sent by Mr. 
Mackercher to Rolph's house? Why was there application 
made to Rolph by him? Why, truly, because he was informed 
that Rolph was in the family, and that he was a material 
witness. 

I must take notice to your lordships that the testimony of 
Cavanagh, who is examined for the defendant, is very strong, 
though he does not take upon himself to swear as to positive 
time, yet it shows what he swore was true, and should have 
weight with the jury'. 

Hussey made himself very inconsistent on his examination. 
Was it natural when he found, as he said, that Mrs. Heath 
changed sides, and that she was a peremptory witness, that he 
would not have expostulated with her thereupon? He has been 
pleased to ramble much in the course of his testimony by giving 
an account of his gravel walks, but if he came here to tell 
truth, what occasion was there for those excursions? Unless 
he would make us believe he was a man of gi-eater consequence 
than he has appeared to be. 

My lords, the plaintiff's pretensions are attempted to be sup- 
ported with the slightest proofs. Your lordships and the 
gentlemen of the jury will take it into their consideration what 
objections have been made to the plaintiff's witnesses, how 
inconsistent each one of them has been with himself, and how 
inconsistent they have been all with each other ; and if the 
lessor of the plaintiff is to prove his legitimacy it should be 
by positive and uncontrovertible evidence, and not by sug- 
gestions or presumptions. A supposed child is an injury to the 
original donor, to the remainder-men, to lessees and pur- 
cha^iers, and to the public in general. To me it is astonishing, 
and I believe it is so to all mankind, how it can be presumed 
that Lady Altham should have a child, and that her ladyship 
should not claim it whilst she was living. 

T foar I have trespassed too much on your lordships' time, 
and on the gentlemen of the jury, and shall only observe that 
tlio defendant is now possessed of the estate of tlio family, and 
aw his birth is unquestionable, and that there is all the doubt 
and uncertainty in the world attending the pretensions of the 
h'Hsor of tho plaintiff, I hofio the gentlemen of the jury will 
think a verdict ought to l>e found for the defendant in 
poflsession. 

Court — Gentlemen of the jury, will you please to take 

283 



The Annesley Case. 

any ix'fre&hmont before plaintifi's counsel begin to ispeak to the 
evidence on their side of tJae question? 

Jury — We luuubly thank your lordships ; we shall be glad 
to refresh ourselves.* 

Court — Gentlemen of counsel for the lessor of the plaintiff, 
please to proceed, 

Serjeant Mr. Serjeant Marshall, counsel for the lessor of the plaintiflF — 
My lords and you gentlemen of the jury, I am in this cause of 
counsel with Mr. James Annesley, the lessor of the plaintiff. I 
believe there has scarce been an instance in any age of such 
a scene of iniquity, cruelty, and inhumanity as this, with which 
Mr. Annesley has been j)ersecuted for the course of many 
years. He has been kidnapped, transported, and sold as a 
slave for thirteen or fourteen years. The very recital of it 
must excite compassion in every human bi^east. When his 
slavery was expired he came into England to assert his right, 
but had the misfortune to shoot a man accidentally, and then 
the defendant (I am sori-y to mention it) contrived to indict 
him for mmder at the sessions at the Old Bailey, held for a 
gaol delivery for the City of London and county of Middlesex, 
where the lessor of the plaintiff was tried, and honourably 
acquitted. 

The defendant's counsel in opening his case said they would 
prove the plaintiff applied to several people, and told them he 
would be pleased to go overseas, and that he was not kidnapped, 
and that no force or compulsion was made use of to transport 
him, but that he went abroad voluntarily. Yet, as the gentle- 
men have not attempted to prove it, it stands uncontro verted, 
that the plaintiff was spirited away by the defendant, the Earl 
of Anglesea, to feel the effects of slavery in America, to sub- 
ject him to the dangers of the seas and inclemencies of different 
climates, with intention to put an end to a life that stood in 
the defendant's way. But the hand of Providence has still 
protected him in the midst of his afflictions. Admiral Vernon 
contributes to have him conducted to these kingdoms, and good 
fortune furnished him with friends when his life was thirsted 
after. He now comes into Court before your lordships to 
support his undoubted right and show the world the severities 
he underwent. 

The lessor of the plaintiff was very young, about twelve years 
old, when he was kidnapped and transported, and thus deprived 
of an opportunity of asserting his right. He was abandoned 



* It was now between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, when the 
Jury refreshed themBelves for about half an hour. 

284 



Speeches. 



and reduced to the lowest ebb of misery. The defendant, the Serjeant 
Earl of Anglesea, had new additions of honour and title by the '"'^'"sbai 
plaintiff's misfortunes ; and being of a proud, avaricious dis- 
position, tempered with cruelty and inclined to oppression (it 
is with reluctance I mention these characters), could not bear 
that a boy in those low circumstances should succeed to the 
Altham estate and title, or be presumptive heir to the Earl of 
Anglesea. Expedients were to be found out to prevent his 
arriving at these honours, which were accordingly put in exe- 
cution. The defendant would endeavour to overturn the 
plaintiff's right by pretending an insufficiency of his evidence. 
But, my lords, this must be a vain pretext, since he himself 
was the sole occasion thereof ; and as the transportation has 
been proved as clear as the noon-day, the defendant, the 
Earl of Anglesea, must be considered as a spoliator in law, 
and must not take advantage of the difficulties arising from 
the wickedness of his own acts to prejudice the plaintiff 

If the lessor of the plaintiff at the time of the fatal trans- 
portation, about fifteen years ago, had been admitted to prose- 
cute his just right he then might have had an opportunity of 
proving his birth by demonstrative, undeniable evidence. I 
say, therefore, by this means the defendant has advantages 
abundantly superior to him, while the lessor of the plaintiff 
labours vmder the greatest disadvantages ; and, indeed, con- 
sidering the nature of the thing, it is vei-y providential that 
at this time of day any of the plaintiff's witnesses who prove 
his birth happen to be living. When I come to speak to the 
evidences on both sides, and compare them together, I believe 
I shall be able to prove that the probability is to be applied 
to the evidence of our side, and that they deserve credit, and 
show beyond all doubt the legitimacy of the plaintiff. There 
may be, my lords, some little variations in our evidence, but 
this is very natural considering the distance of twenty-eight 
years since the lessor of the plaintiff was bom. 

I shall beg leave to lay before your lordships and the gentle- 
men of the jury the nature of the plaintiff's case, and hope 
your lordships will pardon me if I happen to repeat anything 
which I formerly mentioned when I had the honour of stating 
the plaintiff's evidence before we proceeded to the examina- 
tion. It has appeared most evidently in my humble appre- 
hension that the plaintiff was bom at Dunmaine, in the county 
of Wexford, and is tho son of Arthur, late Lord Altham, by his 
wife the Lady Altham. It seems Lord Altham was a passion- 
ate man, and my lady was a sickly, pimy woman, and for 
other reasons, which I shall mention by and by when I come 
to speak to what was urged by defendant's counsel to that 
pmrticular, it was thought proper by Lord and Lady Altham 
to send their child to Joan Landy to be nursed, who was 

285 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant married (as appears by some of the plaintiff's evidence) to 
Marshall ^^^ MacCormick, a sailor, by whom Joan Landy had a child. 
Some of the witnesses have said that Lord Altham had got 
Joan Landy with child. But let that matter be as it may, 
after her quitting the service she wont to her father's house, 
on the lands of Dunmaine, and there lay-in some time before 
Lady Altham was brought to bed of a son. My lady suspected 
Lord Altham was the father of Joan Landy's child from infor- 
mations her ladyship received from some busy people ; but 
being afterwards convinced that Landy had a child by her 
husband MacCormick, then Lady Altham sent the lessor of 
the plaintiff, her ladyship's son and heir, to be nursed by 
Landy, and though the defendant's counsel would endeavour to 
urge how careless Lady Altham was with respect to her child 
from this particular, yet I believe your lordships and the 
gentlemen of the jury have it in their notes what circumspec- 
tion was used to examine the milk of Furlong's wife, and it 
appearing unsound by the opinion of one Dr. Brown, the 
lessor of the plaintiff was sent to Landy to be nursed, she 
being approved a fit person for that purpose. It appears that 
all proper care w^as taken to fit up Landy's father's house 
proper for the reception of the child, and that Lord Altham 
caused a coach road to be made from Dunmaine to Landy's 
house for the conveniency of his lady's visiting the child, 
where the child remained at nurse for about eighteen months, 
until my Lord Altham took him home and took the proper 
care of his person and education. 

And now I must mention that my lord and lady separated 
on accoimt of an unfortunate suspicion of Mr. Thomas Palliser, 
and afterwards my lord became familiar with one Miss Gregory, 
who expected his lordship would marry her in case Lady Atlham 
had died. She, it seems, was my client's bitter enemy, 
because she apprehended he was a bar to her ambition, and 
having a great ascendant over Lord Altham she contrived to 
set the boy adrift naked to the world when he was scarce eight 
years old, and very artfully gave out that the boy was the 
eon of Joan Landy. And the boy being thus abandoned 
knew not what to do, but wandered about the streets, and 
the defendant afterwards readily encouraged the report of 
his illegitimacy to serve his iniquitous designs of usurping 
his title, and therefore transported him to America in hopes 
he should never more be heard of. 

We have produced Mrs Annesley, who is married to a near 
relation of the defendant, who sw^ears positively that it was 
well known in the family that Lady Altham had a son. If 
the title of the lessor of the plaintiff was a mere pretension 
(as contended for by the gentlemen of the other side) it is 
surprising that the Earl of Anglesea would not produce any 
286 



Speeches. 



one person of his family in favour of his side of the question, Serjeant 
though he is so well acquainted with them, and might have '*«'shaii 
influence enough to produce them, if they could testify any- 
thing against the plaintifl''s right. Mr. Higginson says it 
was known in Enniscorty that Lady Altham had a child ; and 
Alderman Barns says it was well laiown in Ross. Yet I 
say none of the family has been produced to declare that it 
was not known. 

The counsel on the other side would endeavour to lay a 
mighty stress on the meanness and poverty of some of the 
plaintiff's witnesses ; but how trivial this objection is I appeal 
to your lordships and the gentlemen of the jury. It is 
impossible to keep witnesses alive, and we must prove our 
right by such witnesses as are living. The plaintiff came 
to England as early as he could to claim his title. 

Mrs. Heath says Lady Altham was visited but seldom, and 
but by very few neighbours in that country. Indeed, she says 
Mrs. Pigot visited her ladyship. I must own, in my own 
opinion, those that were produced were not suitable visitors 
for a lady of her distinction. There are two women produced 
for the defendant who paid her ladyship visits, but they never 
visited her after the separation, and I am afraid they are 
not persons to be credited — at least in point of virtue, one 
of them hag been strangely represented in Court. 

Mrs. Cole, my lords, is a woman of unquestionable credit. 
She says Lady Altham came to Ireland in 1713, and it was said 
she was with child in that year. Her ladyship lodged first 
at Captain Briscoe's; from thence she went to Mr. Vice's, and 
from Vice's to Dunrnaine. She swears Lord Altham threw 
some saucers near her ladyship's forehead, which occasioned 
her miscarriage. Lady Altham, by the defendant's witnesses, 
is represented a haughty, proud woman, which is a strong 
reason to believe she was then affrighted, and that such an 
accident might be attended with the consequences which after- 
wards hapf^ened. The waking of Mrs. Cole's mother at 
night is a circumstance that must strike her memory so strong 
as not to be easily forgotten, and as the defendant's counsel 
appealed to the gentlemen of the jury, I likewise submit to 
them whether a giii of thirteen years is not old enough to 
inquire into and know what a miscarriage is. 

Ah to the second miscarriage, at Vice's in Dublin, Catharine 
MacCormick only said that there was a suspicion of a second 
miscarriage, and that it was so reported, but did not say 
that Lady Altham miscarried. And this suspicion was con- 
firmed by Mrs. Heath, who o^wns that there was a quarrel 
between Lord Altham and his lady, that a midwife was sent 
for, and that Lord Altliam declared that he would send for 
one, and that if she was not with child he would put her 

287 



The Anneslcy Case. 



Serjeant away. The reason that Mrs. Heath siiya that my lord gave 
Marshall j^j. J^^g sending IVir tlie midwife apjuai's to be idle and without 
the least shadow of truth, because my lord continued with my 
lady afterwards, till Februai-y, 1716, so that it is plain Mrs. 
Heath must have found out this private reason of her own. 
The plaintiff's counsel asked Mrs. Cole and Mrs. Briscoe 
what they heard with respect to Lady Altham's being with 
child, and they were prevented by the defendant's counsel 
from answering as being matter of hearsay evidence ; yet from 
the objection it ought to be inferred, and the gentlemen of 
the jury must presume so, that Mrs. Cole and Miss Briscoe's 
mother told them that Lady Altham was with child. As to 
the freedom used by Lord Altham with Mrs. Bates, from 
what has appeared of Lord Altham's disposition even from 
the defendant's witnesses, it is not in the least improbable; 
for do not all of them mention the intimacy they had with 
Lord Altham? And pray, why might he not be as free with 
Mrs. Bates, by clapping her on the shoulder, as Mr. Prime 
Serjeant mentioned? 

It happened that very few neighbours visited Lady Altham 
when she was brought to bed. Mrs. Butler was the only 
neighbour who paid her visits, and to whom her ladyship 
fled for refuge at the time of the separation. She was in the 
room at the time of the birth, but she is dead. Lord Altham 
was not visited by any people of rank, for Colonel Loftus says 
he did not visit him. So that, my lords, considering the 
distance of time, and the disadvantages my client is under, 
he has given as convincing proofs of his title and legitimacy 
as the nature of the case can well admit. The defendant's 
counsel have shown a good deal of ingenuity in puzzling and 
perplexing the plaintiff's evidence on the cross-examination. 
Yet the truth remains entire and unquestioned that Lady 
Altham was brought to bed of a son, and that that son is the 
lessor of the plaintiff. And though the plaintiff's witnesses 
might vary about the time of the eclipse at this length of time, 
that cannot be material ; nor whether the birth was before 
or after the eclipse ; nor whether one servant was in the 
house before another servant, the fact remains proved, the 
birth of the lessor of the plaintiff is ascertained. Nay, the 
variations show that the evidence is not framed ; for if there 
was an exact agreement between witnesses it would be an 
argument they were instructed in their story, which answers 
the defendant's objection in that particular. And though the 
defendant would endeavour to show that maidservants are not 
the proper witnesses for such a birth, surely, my lords, as this 
case is circumstanced, the servantmaids who lived in the house 
are the most likely persons to be informed of an affair of that 
nature. 
288 



Speeches. 



Mr. Higginson (whom I shall have occasion to mention Serjeant 
fui-ther hereafter) is a man of unquestionable character, '•■■'^'^*^* 
and his evidence for the plaintiff is strengthened by such 
circumstances that plainly show he could not be mistaken. 
He proves particularly the time as to her ladyship's pregnancy, 
and his character was not attempted to be impeached by the 
defendant's counsel; for when Colonel Loftus and Mr. 
Colclough were examined as to the character of other witnesses 
no questions were asked as to the credit of this gentleman. 
Lord Mount Alexander, my lords, says that Lord Altham had 
protestetl to Captain Groves that his wife was with child. 
Colonel Pigot and Alderman Barns swear that it was reported 
Lady Altham had a child. And when Colonel Pigot would 
have related to the Court what he heard his mother say with 
regard to her being godmother to Lady Altham's son it was 
objected to by the defendant as hearsay evidence. As to 
Alderman Barns, the jury are the best judges whether he 
was out of his senses, for every gentleman that heard him 
must see how sensibly he delivered his testimony. As to 
Major Fitzgerald, my lords, he might forget the season of the 
year when my lady was brought to bed ; and this is not 
surprising, it being so long since. But a birth so well 
proved cannot in the least be discredited by his not remember- 
ing the particular season. 

I come next to answer why Joan Landy was not examined, 
on which the gentlemen of the other side have laid such stress. 
We offered her to the defendant's counsel, but truly they did 
not think proper to examine her; and the reason of their doing 
so appears plainly, because she has been tampered with, and 
that might come out upon her examination. Though liolph 
and some others of the defendant's witnesses said that it was 
well kno^Ti that Landy was with child by Lord Altham, the 
defendant, or others, and that Lady Altham knew it, yet the 
circumstances of the affair plainly show how improbable this 
imputation is. Landy continued three months in the house 
of Dunmaine after rny lady came there. I believe it will 
hardly be imagined that Lady Altham (who was of a haughty 
spirit) would admit her to live so long in the house if there 
had been any notion of her being with child by Jjord Altham. 

'llie gentlemen of the other side have exeii>cd themselves in 
endeavouring to show the improbability of Lady Altham's child 
being nurse<l abroad. This objection may vei-y readily receive 
an answer that the children of noble families are very often 
sent abroa<l, for this reason, that the luxurious way of living 
in great houR<.'s may \>e of <li8Hervice to tlio nurse, and conse- 
quently hurt the child, so that it is judged somotiiiies more 
eligible not to have the child nursed at home. I have been 
informed in Court i)y a nobleman that the present I>5rd 
u 289 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant Ophaly, tlie son and heir of the Earl of Kildare, the first peer 
arsba ^j ^j^j^ kingdom, was sent abroad to be nursed, and I apprehend 
that such an instance is sufficient to obviate what was offered 
by the gentlemen as to that jMjint. As to tlie meanness of 
Landy's house, whei^in the child was nursed, the three witnesses 
produced by the defendant give different accounts of it. One 
says there was no door, but a busli ; another says there was 
a door ; one says there was no partition in the cabin ; the other 
two witnesses say there was a partition. Mr. Elms says the 
partition was of sod and stone wall ; but Rolph, who pretended 
to know it better, by his describing the figure of it on a paper 
on his examination, said that a hurdle fixed to the ground to 
keep off the straw served as a kind of partition. This 
repugnancy of these witnesses is sufficient to destroy the credit 
of all of them. 

I shall, my lords, proceed to make some further observa- 
tions on the evidence produced by the defendant, and must 
remark to your lordships that if a story was to be made up 
without any foundation in truth, as defendant pretends, he 
had it more in his power to trump up a fictitious story than 
the plaintiff, the defendant having a country seat in the county 
of Wexford, near the place of the birth, whereas the lessor of 
the plaintiff was out of the kingdom for so many years, and 
destitute of friends, interest, and fortune. 

As to the testimony of Rolph and Heath they contradict 
each other ; indeed it was requisite they should agree in some- 
thing, and that was that they went out of curiosity to see the 
child. Yet how silly must that curiosity be to see whether it 
was my Lord Altham's or the dog-boy's child? But the de- 
fendant, being sensible how fully the lessor of the plaintiff had 
proved the time of his birth, would very ingeniously endeavour 
to overturn it by pretending the Lfady Altham was in spring, 
1715, at Wexford assizes, when Mr. Walsh and Mr. Masterton 
were tried there for enlisting men for the service of the Pre- 
tender. However, Mr. Higginson has falsified all the de- 
fendant's witnesses, and his evidence will plainly evince that 
this story is framed by the defendant to serve particular pur- 
poses, and therefore the testimony of Mrs. Giffard, Mrs. Heath, 
and Rolph must fall to the gi'ound. Mrs. Giffard in her 
evidence names those she says that went with Lord and Lady 
Altham to Wexford assizes. Mrs. Heath adds Mrs. Giffard's 
sister to the numlwjr of those persons that went. I shall 
humbly submit to the gentlemen of the jury if Mr. Colclough 
does not plainly disprove Mrs. Giffard. She swore that Lady 
Altham sat by Mr. Colclough the greatest part of Masterton's 
trial. Mr. Colclough positively swears that no lady sat by 
him, and gives a very good reason for his being positive in this 
circumstance, to wit, that he was so engaged in seeing justice 
290 



Speeches. 



done to Mr. Masterton, who -was his relation, then on trial Serjeant 
for his life, that he would not sit by the best lady in the '^*''^^*" 
land. He also says that he knew Lady Altham very well, and 
did not see her in Court; and, my lords, if my Lady Altham 
had been in the Court-house numbers of persons must have 
known it. Mr. Ken', a witness for the defendant, proves the 
day the assizes began, and tells your lordships he saw no ladies 
there. Mr. Masterton's trial was on Monday, the 18th of 
April, 1715, yet Mr. Higginson swears that on Tuesday morn- 
ing, the lyth of April, the same year, he saw Lady Altham at 
Dunmaine big with child. Turner swears my Lord Altham 
went to the assizes, but that Lady Altham was not there, for 
that her ladyship was at home at Dunmaine House. Rolph, 
who is examined for the defendant, in order to prove Lady 
Altham at the assizes, says he attended Lord Altham there, 
yet did not know in what part of the town he lodged, which 
shows strongly he was not there. 

The defendant has produced Mr. Palliser, the elder, Mr. 
Aaron Lambert and his wife, and Mr. Elms, as to the repu- 
tation of the neighbourhood of Dunmaine, that Lady Altham 
had not a child, and they say they visited Lady Altham once 
a fortnight, and that her ladyship could not be brought to 
bed without their knowledge, &c. But the gentlemen of the 
jury will please to consider that they all agree in a sameness of 
expression in their examination, and knew nothing at aU in 
their cross-examination, which must be attended with some 
suspicion. As to the credit to be given to those witnesses, 
I must beg leave to take notice that Mr. Palliser, the elder, 
seems to have lost all his memory in this affair, for on his 
cross-examination he did not know when he was in the baronj' of 
Forth, or when he lived in the Great Island. Mr. Lambert 
happens to have the same misfortune ; he even forgot the 
time ho was married, and some other circumstances. As to 
Mrs. Lambert, it is sufficient to name her. 

Mr. Palliser, the younger, happens to be a very extraordinai-y 
witness. He says that a very few days before the separation 
Ix>rd Altham had told him his intentions of parting from his 
wife because he luid no children by her in order to oblige 
Lord Anglesea. It is very unlikely" that if Lord Altham was 
.so deUjrmined he would have imparte<l his resolutions to him ; 
and Mr. Palliser said he l)eHeved that Lord AltTiam did not 
intend to kill him, he was so conscious of his innocence, that 
passes were directed by Lord Altham at his body, and that 
Anthony Dyer took the sword out of his lordship's hand. 

It has apf)eared. my lords, that a coach road was made to 
Landy's, where the child was nursed. I submit to your lord- 
«hips and the gentlemen of the jury liow the defendant's wit- 
noNses roiitradirt each other in attempting to disfirove this. 

291 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant Rolph said there was no road made ; Elms said the same ; but 
with difficulty it was extorted from Kims that there was a road 
made, that there was a slough thrown up at each side to make 
it passable, which Avas a short way, as he pretended, for my 
lord to go a-hunting. Kolph says there was a coach road 
made on purpose to go to the church, and to the mill, and 
to Mr. Palliser's and Mrs. Giffard's houses, and that Mrs. 
Giffard usually came that way, and not roimd by the bridge. 
Yet Mrs. Giti'ard said she knew no other road from her house to 
Dunmaine than the road over the bridge. As these evidences 
are inconsistent the defendant entirely fails in his defence. 

The defendant's counsel insisted that the child was taken no 
notice of by Lady Altham, but Lutwich swears that he saw 
the child with her ladyship at one Wright's, in Koss, where 
her ladysliip went to lodge after she left Mrs. Butler's. He 
further proves how the child was taken away by stealth. 
Margaret Hodges says that Lady Altham mentioned her child 
to her at Alderman King's in Dublin ; and Mrs. Heath, thus 
far agreeing with Mrs. Hodges, that lodgings were taken on 
the Quay for Lady Altham before her ladyship went to lodge 
at Mr. King's, and that a pistole was given in earnest and 
returned, confirms strongly the testimony of Mrs. Hodges. As 
to Alderman King's testimony, it only amounts to this, that 
Lady Altham did never mention anything of her son to him. 
lliis may be easily accounted for, because Lord Altham forbade 
the child to be brought to his mother. Lady Altham's con- 
dition at that time is well known ; she was confined to her 
chamber, and could receive no intelligence but from Mrs. 
Heath. 

Lady Altham left this kingdom in September, 1724, and it 
has been proved by Herd, one of the defendant's witnesses, thai 
the child was in the care of Lord Altham the August preceding 
that September, so there was only a month between the father's 
deserting him and her ladyship's going out of the kingdom. 
Therefore it is not extraordinary that she did not hear of her 
child's misfortune. But it is undeniable that the plaintiff was 
taken care of, and educated as the son of a nobleman, and 
likewise acknowledged by Lord Altham as his son and heir. 
Mr. Misset, a gentleman of an undoubted character, proves that 
the late Lord Altham mentioned to him at Kinnea that that 
boy (meaning Mr. Annesley) would be Earl of Anglesea. Mr. 
Charles Byrne swears that Lord Altham treated him at Carrick- 
duff as his son and heir, and acknowledged as such ; and 
this witness declares that he would have resented the plaintiff's 
being brought to his house if he was thought the natural son 
of Lord Altham. Mr. James (Javanagh acknowledged like- 
wise that he was treated at Carrickduff as Lord Altham's lawful 
292 



speeches. 



son ; and I believe the defendant will not contest the veracity Serjeant 
and character of those gentlemen. Marshall 

I must beg leave to take some notice to your lordships of 
the circumstances of Lady Altham to obviate what the gentle- 
men say as to that point, and to account for her ladyship's not 
endeavouring to assert the plaintiff's title. It was proved 
by Mrs. Heath that Lady Altham had £100 a year to live on 
till the death of Lord Altham ; but if she happened to survive 
him, then she was to have nothing. Therefore after his death 
her ladyship was supported by the bounty of the Duke and 
Duchess of Buckingham, and, considering her condition and 
the distance of kingdom, she was incapable of asserting the 
plaintiff's right. Besides, the infumities and sickness she 
laboured under might affect her memory, and it may be pre- 
sumed strongly that she imagined he was dead. 

By the limitation of the settlement under the will of 1701, 
Lord Altham had but a tenancy for life — the first will limited 
the estate to Richard, Lord Altham, for life, remainder to his 
issue in tail. It was undoubtedly for the benefit of Lord 
Altham, in fK)int of raising money by sale of i-eversion, 
to have deserted his son, for he was then under age, and could 
not join. Besides, if he was dead, or put out of the way, the 
estate must, of course, come to the defendant, so that by the 
defendant's joining with his brother, the late Lord Altham, 
they could the easier raise money by selling such part of the 
estate as they thouglit proper. Moreover, my lords, Miss 
Gregory had .such an ascendant over Lord Altham that she 
could lead him as she thought proper, and she had an interest 
in prevailing on his lordship to disown his son, as she assumed 
the title of Lady Altham, and expected, if she had children, 
that they might succeed to the estate. And thus to gratify 
an imperious mistress, that unfortunate nobleman was induced 
to abandon his son. 

The transportation, being an act of the defendant's, speaks 
stronger than words, because it must establish a presumption 
of the plaintiff's right. No later than last Saturday we find, 
by the evidence of Mr. Stone, attempts have been made 
to disprove Purcell's testimony, which attempts have been 
rendere^l abortive, and serve only to confirm the truth of what 
he swore. 

Tlie names of Annesley and Hennesley are different from 
each other, and suppose distinct jx^rsons ; and Hennesley not 
l>eing mentioned in Stevenson's book is no reason that 
Annesley and Hennesley must be the same person, 
because Hennesley appears by the " Tholsel " books to 
have l>een indentured l>eforo the 25th of March, 1728; and 
Mr. Tighe swears Mr. Annesley did not leave his house till 
April, 1728. This must be a strong presumption that 

293 



The Annesley Case. 



.'Serjeant Anncsley was not tlie ITcnncsley who was indentured. Besides, 
Marshall ^j^^ ^^^^^ ^jj^^ ^^^^^ ^.^-j ^jjj ^^^^ .j^^j^ ^^ ^p^jj^ j728 (as appeared 

by Stevenson's l>oi)ks), and Stevenson's list was taken just 
before the sailing, and several that were indentui-ed afterwards 
ran away; it appearing: that above one hundred were indentuied 
and only eighty persons were in Stevenson's list. As to the 
imprudence of committing an evil action in the open day, 
we have too many instances thereof from the misconduct of 
several persons. My lords, if the lessor of the plaintiff had 
been indentured at the " Tholsel," Mr. Gonne, the town-clerk, 
must have known him, as he was acquainted with his father. 
It has appeared in proof that very strict inquiry is miide at 
the " Tholsel " office from those that go to the plantations 
whether they indentured voluntarily or not. From hence it 
follows that the lesssor of the plaintiff was secretly kidnapped 
and transported to America. 

Mr. Giffard's testimony stands unimpeached. The defendant 
confessed to him the just title of the lessor of the plaintiff, 
and that he Avas his brother's son ; and though he might be 
supposed in a passion when he expressed those words, it 
cannot be presumed he would make declarations of surrendering 
to Mr. Annesley his right unless he was conscious that Mr. 
Annesley was lawfully entitled thereto. 

As to Joan Laffan, my lords, nothing but the force of truth 
could make her as consistent as she was. She has been 
examined a second time at the distance of three days, and 
re-examined over and over again the third and fourth time, 
and never varied in her testimony. 

My lords, this being a cause of the greatest importance, 
and as all the acts of the defendant induce the strongest belief 
of the indubitable right of the lessor of the plaintiff, and must 
consequently support his proofs and weaken those of the 
defendant, I humbly hoj>e the gentlemen of the jury will 
consider it well, and give a verdict agreeable to justice, which 
I doubt not will be for my client, the lessor of the plaintiff. 

Serieant Mil. Serjeakt Txsdall, counsel for the lessor of the plaintiff 
— My lords, and you gentlemen of the jury, I am counsel of 
the same side with Mr. Serjeant Marshall. This is certainly a 
cause of the greatest consequence, and I am sure from your 
wise considerations it will receive its due determination. I 
shall first think necessar}- to observe that from the circum- 
stances of the plaintiff's case, and the death of the parties, 
it was natural for some of the witnesses in the space of so 
many years to forget some things with respect to time and 
place. Variations of this kind must necessarily happen in 
a course of evidence after so long a time, but the principal 
fact remains true. 

The matter in dispute, my lords, is attended with a very 
294 



Speeches. 



particular misfortune on the side of the plaintiff. Mr. Sepjtant 
Annesley's father, the late Lord Altham, had no relations in ^*^°* ' 
the county -where the lessor of the plaintiff was born, nor had 
his mother any relations in this kingdom, which in a great 
measure accounts for that circumstance that there are not 
people of rank or relations in the family to prove his legiti- 
macy. The defendant is a peer of this kingdom and of 
England, and is in possession of a great estate near the place 
of the plaintiff's birth, and as most of the inhabitants are tenants 
and acquaintances of the defendant, and under his influence, 
they might not be so easily prevailed upon to give evidence 
here. 

It has been proved that the plaintiff was transported out of 
this kingdom to America in an illegal and iniquitous manner 
when he was about fourteen years old, and having not returned 
till lately he must be ignorant what witnesses were living to 
prove his birth till he made a diligent inquiry ; he must be 
obliged to the friendship of those who voluntarily offered 
themselves ; and now he does all he can by offering them 
here in Court as evidence's. 

It has not been attempted to be proved by any of the 
defendant's evidences (except Rolpih) that any improper appli- 
cation has been made on the plaintiff's side for evidence, but 
the account Rolph gives is very inconsistent. Is it probable 
that Mr. Mackorcher, at the first sight, would offer Rolph a 
lieutenancy in presence of two other persons, and thereby put 
it in tlie power of Rolph to have ruined the cause of the 
plaintiff? Or that when Rolph refused it, as he says, he 
would have gone to him a second time to ask him any questions 
in relation to what he first proposed to him when four other 
persons who weie strangers were present? No, my lords, no 
rational man could bo guilty of such a piece of misconduct. 
If any offers were to be made they must be made to people 
in a lower condition than Rolph aj)i)ears to be, from his own 
declaration, who would be ready if they met such encourage- 
ment to appear here and give their testimony. Though Mrs. 
Heath mentions how she has been applied to, yet she is silent 
as to any undue means. So that in fine Rolph was the only 
person pretending to be tampered with, which' shows that this 
part of Jiis testimony is very incredible. 

I shall now, my lords, endeavour to sjx^ak to the evidences 
on both sides, and hojx; to be able to show that the jilnintiff 
has very clearly proved his title. Eleanor Murpliy and Mary 
Doyle agree as to a positive proof of the 1)irth and clirisfening. 
The little variations of time are of no significance. They 
likewise prove that Itedmonds was sent for a midwife. Red- 
monda proves that he went for ono to Ross, and, further, says 
that ho was s[X)ken to by Colonel Palliser in order to prevent 

295 



The Annesley Case. 



SeHeant giving hie testimony, and the Colonel owns he had Rome 
* * discourse with him (o this purpose previous to his examina- 
tion. Brown tjJiys there were bonfires and rejoicings for the 
birth of tlio child, and Scott swore that he was sent several 
times with messages from Mrs. Pigot to inquire about the 
child's health, and that it was the reputation of the country 
that Lady Altliam had a child, which strengthens the testimony 
of Murphy and Doyle. 

lliere can be no manner of doubt but that there was a coach 
road made, as proved by the plaintiff, for the convenience of 
Lady Altham's going to Landy's house, where the child was 
nxu-sed. Elms at first denied the road was made, and after- 
wards owned it, as Mr. Serjeant Marshall has fully observed. 
But I must remark to your lordships that Bolph says a coach 
road was made before the nurse's cabin was built, and that 
the cabin was built a year before my lady came to Dunmaine ; 
and he further says that the road was made on purpose for 
visiting Mrs. Giffard. Surely this must be false, in regard 
Lady Altham was not in the country for a long time after 
the road was made, according to Rolph's account, and there 
was no occasion to visit Mrs. Giffard before her ladyship came 
to Dunmaine, and consequently it could not be made for the 
convenience of visiting Mrs. Giffard. Besides, Mrs. Giffard 
says she always came over the bridge, in contradiction to all 
the other witnesses. Therefore it must be supposed that the 
road was made on purpose to visit the child, and the great 
endeavoxu-s used by the defendant to overturn the plaintiff's 
witnesses in this particular show his apprehension of the 
consequences of this circumstance. 

The defendant endeavours to lay great stress on the mean- 
ness of the dress and appearance of some of the plaintiff's 
witnesses, but this cannot be an argument against the plaintiff's 
cause, because he must make use of what proofs the nature 
of the thing Avill admit, and of such witnesses as are living 
that could give an account of his birth, and such are those 
who happened to be servants at that time in the house. The 
little variation of the circumstance of time and place ought 
to have no weight. And as to Redmonds, however con- 
temptible his appearance may be, he was a person fit enough 
for the errand to the midwife. 

I shall next proceed to our witnesses who prove Lady Altham's 
pregnancy and miscarriage. Mrs. Cole gives a very credible 
account of the miscarriage, and though the counsel on the 
other side have laboured very hard to show that a child of 
her age could not be curious enough to inquire into a thing 
of this nature, yet the contrary may very well be supposed, 
as she probably never saw any such thing before, and therefore 
296 



speeches. 



it WM very natural it might make an impression on her mind. Serjeant 
A person of an advanced age might very well be imagined not '^**^*'' 
to have a curiosity on such an occasion, as perhaps having 
seen a thing of that nature before. Could this circumstance 
of Mrs. Cole's testimony be intended for any particular 
purpose? No, my lords, it could not, because she could 
never di'eam, nor was she prophetic enough to know, that ?he 
should ever be called uf>on here to give her evidence. And 
though she and Mrs. Heatli differ in their testimony about 
Lady Altham's going to Vice's this can be of no great conse- 
quence. I appeal to your loi-dships and to the jury, from the 
rational, distinct manner Mrs. Cole gave her evidence, whether 
she or Mrs. Heath deserves greater credit? Alice Bates, my 
lords, swears to Lady Altham's pregnancy and miscarriage at 
Vice's. As to the objection of the freedom used by Lord 
Altliam with her (as she related in her testimony), we see 
that gentlemen and ladies very frequently admit their servant- 
maids to make free with them, and particularly on such 
occasions. Mr. Turner swears he went to Dunmaine immedi- 
ately after his marriage, and as this gentleman resided so 
long in the family he could not mistake as to time or fact. 
He says Lady Altham was then pregnant. Mr. Higginson 
8wears he saw Lady Altham with child. He is an unimpeached 
witness, and by the circumstances he observed in his testimony 
that he was )x)und for Lord Altham for the sum of £20 ; 
and further, that he was receiver for his lordship for part 
of his estate. We have the strongest reason to be convinced 
of the truth of his testimony. 

I shall now consider the negative proofs of Lady Altham's 
pregnancy, and, first, I shall begin with some of the servants 
of the house pro<luced by the defendant for this point. Owen 
Cavanagh owns that he was absent for some time from Dun- 
maine, and that he left the service for some time, and returned 
thither again. Therefore, as he did not continue constantly 
in the house, there could be no certainty in his evidence, l>e- 
cause Lady Altham might be brought to bed when he was 
absent, whether he was in the service or not. Rolph, by all 
the plaintiff's witnesses, is said to leave Lord Altham's service 
before the birth of the child, and as his testimony, with respect 
to the coach road, appears to be false, his whole evidence ought 
to Ix) discredited. Anthony Dyer, my lords, contradicts all 
the defendant's witnesses, for he says there was no child at the 
housfi of Dunmaine after the separation. Therefore he ought 
not to bo V)eh'eve<l. 

Your ]orrlshif)s and the gentlemen of the jury will j)lcaso to 
consider that the jiroofs on the plaintiff's side are positive 
evidence — Murphy, Doyle, MacCormick, Laffan, and Redmonds, 
who were servants in the house. Mrs. Cole and Mi-r. Briscoe, 

297 



The Anncslcy Case. 

SeHeant Alice Bates, Major B'itzgerald, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Higginson, 
Tlsdail sj^Q^t^ jjjjj Brooks, these are all entirely opposite, with respect 
t-o the pregnancy and miscarriage, to the other servants (the 
defendant's witnesses), Heath, Dyer, Kolj)h, Neif, Cavanagh. 
But as the evidence on behalf of the phiintitf is positive, it 
must bo considered in a stronger light, and outweigh the 
defendant's evidence as to the pregnancy and birth. There- 
fore the superstructure which the defendant builds on such a 
foundation must consequently fall. 

I shall now take notice of those witnesses on the part of the 
defendant who say that it was not reputed in the country that 
Lady Altham had a child. I'lie first person examined to this 
point was Colonel Loftus. This gentleman's testimony is no more 
than that he lived about seven or eight miles from Dunmaine, 
and had no acquaintance with Lord or Lady Altham, and knew 
nothing of the matter in question. So that it is plain the 
intention of producing him Avas only to give a sort of dignity to 
the cause. Colonel Palliser is the next evidence for the 
defendant in this respect. He says he never was absent from 
Dunmaine above a week together, and afterwards owns he was 
was absent above a month at one time. I fear he is too 
ready and forward a witness. In one particular he seeme<i 
an agent in the cause by desiring Redmonds not to appear on 
pretence that his evidence could signify nothing ; and as he 
has shown a good deal of inclination herein in favour of the 
defendant, I can't help saying it throws some suspicion on 
his evidence. Mr. Palliser, the younger, said he believed his 
father visited at Dunmaine, but that he did not see Lady 
Altham often at his father's house. He seems to have too 
much intimacy in that family from his own account. He tells 
you that Lord Altham mentioned to him his intention of turn- 
ing away his lady, yet till that time his loixlship never spoke 
to him of his family affairs. This really appears vei-y strange 
and improbable, and if one fact is not true it must discredit 
all the rest of his testimony. He is contradicted by Joan 
Laffan, who swears that he had Lord Altham's cap on that 
morning of the separation ; he said that he had his hat and 
wig on ; but when they were both on the table here together he 
could not recollect he had a cap on, or if he changed his hat 
and wig for a cap. It is somewhat strange that Mr. Palliser 
should forget the most material passage of his life, for from 
the circumstances of that affair and the treatment he met with 
he must rememl>er the particulars of that affair to his last day. 
The very particular breakfast he had Joan Laffan remembered 
when she was called upon, and he acknowledged, as she said, 
that it was some mulled wine, so that in the minutest cir- 
cumstance she was foimd consistent. Your lordships will 
please to consider what powerful influence resentment has on 



Speeches. 



the minds of men ; and it is not easily removed, and sometimes a Serjeant 
strong resentment against the father is continued to the son. '"•"*'• 
How much Mr. Palliser has been incensed against Lord Altham 
has plainly appealed. 

Mr. Aaron Lambert gives a very loose kind of testimony, 
and when a character was required of Colonel Loftus, with 
respect to Mrs. Lambert, your lordships have seen how cautious 
he was of encouraging any credit to be given to her oath. As 
to Mrs. Giffard, she pretends to remember everything that 
happened relative to the assizes at Wexford, yet she forgot 
her sister, who went in company with her and Lady Altham 
thither, as is evident from Mrs. Heath's testimony. And as 
to the circumstance of the assizes, the testimony of Mr. Col- 
clough, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Higginson, for the plaintiff, are 
diametrically opposite to the testimony of Mrs. Giffard, Rolph, 
and Heath for the defendant. Rolph, I must remark, was 
never at Lord Altham's lodgings. Mrs. Heath adds a new 
person to the company. I must submit to the gentlemen of 
the jury whether the plaintiff's or the defendant's witnessea 
are most consistent, and which of them give the most probable 
evidence. 

The next thing I shall trouble your lordships with is to make 
some remarks on some declarations made by the late Lord 
Altham, that he had no legitimate issue, whereon the gentle- 
men of the other side strongly relied. Colonel liarman was 
produced as a witness for the defendant to this purpose, but 
truly he could not tell whether the conversation he had with 
Lord Altham was before or after the death of Queen Anne, 
therefore he is not certain in his evidence herein, and could 
not fix any particular time. Father Downes, another of the 
defendant's evidence, could not likewise fix any particular time 
in his testimony. Colonel Wall says that it was in 1725 Lord 
Altham wished he had a lawful son. Mr. Wall said that it was 
the interest of my lord to have a son on the opinion of the 
wills and codicils, whereas the point of law is quite contrary. 
Colonel Beckett's testimony, my lords, is manifestly incon- 
(sistent. He says he dine<^l with Lord Altham in the summer- 
liouse at Mr. Vice's, and that it was not above a year from the 
time his lordshif) lodged at Mr. Vice's till he came to live at 
Inchioore. Now, my loids, it is evident in proof that Mr. 
Beckett must have mistaken himself for several years, for that 
my lord live<l in Dunmaine, Kinnea, Carrickduff, in Dublin, 
and other places for a goo<l many years before ho went to 
live at Inchicore. As to Mr. Medlicott, it is very odd that 
I-K>rd Altham should make the declaration which he mentions, 
that as he had no son of his own lie did not care if the estate 
went to the devil. However, this declaration may be made 
consiotent, with some little variation, by only substituting the 

299 



The Annesley Case. 



SeHeant word "if" instead of "as," which would make it, "If he 
* *' had no eon of his own," then it would be a hyi>othetical ex- 
pression, and probably Mr. Medlicott might have forgot the 
identical words in so long a time. These last witnesses weie 
all that were examined by the defendant as to the point of the 
declarations. 

Now, 1 shall beg leave to mention what the witnesses on 
behalf of the lessor of the plaintiflE swear as to this point. 
Colonel Pigot says it was generally reported that Lady 
Altham was brought to bed of a eon about twenty-eight years 
ago, and from his intimacy with that family he could not be 
mistaken. Alderman Barns said that Lord Altham mentioned 
to him that Lady Altham had a son about the time of the birth 
of the lessor of the plaintiflf, and he believes he was told so by 
five hundred people in Koss. Can it be imagined that his 
lordship would make such declarations with a view of imposing 
a child on the public in prejudice to his brother and the 
remainder men of the family if lie had not a son? Landy's 
child was notoriously known and admitted to be a bastard, and 
it was not in the power of Lord Altham to make him his 
legitimate son. But Aldennan Barns's testimony is confirmed 
by Lord Mount Alexander, from Lord Altham's positive declaia- 
tion, " By God, Groves, I have a child by my wife; that will 
make my brother's nose swell." The honour of this noble 
lord is suflficient to establish this as an undeniable truth. It 
is true Lord Mount Alexander does not fix a time for this 
declaration, but the nature of the thing speaks it, that it 
must be after the birth of the child, and it cannot be supposed 
Loid Altham would V)e so absurd as to declare he had a child if 
he had not a son. As these evidences on the part of the 
plaintiff are positive, and all the defendant's proofs are nega- 
tive, the most favourable construction that can be made for 
them is that they are ignorant of a fact so notorious to the 
rest of the country. 

That there may be no part of the chain of our evidence 
bi»ken, we have shown what care has been taken of the child ; 
we have proved Joan Landy to be his nurse and Joan Laffan 
his dry-nurse. Laffan was called up and narrowly examined 
three or four different times, notwithstanding which she was 
always found consistent with herself, and all circumstances of 
her testimony were proved fully by her. The whole force of 
the defendant's witnesses was turned to destroy the character 
of this woman, but their testimony was general, and there was 
no fact proved to destroy her evidence, therefore w^hat they 
ewore did not affect her so as to render her a bad witness. 
She said she came to Dunmaine in harvest 1715, and lived a 
year in the family before the child was put under her care, 
which was in harvest 1716, six months before the separation, 
300 



Speeches. 



which was in the beginning of the year 1717, and that tallies Serjeant 
with the time that she was appointed to take care of the child, ^ 
and answers Mr. Prime Serjeant's objection as to that point. 
Dominick FarreU, my lords, strengthens the testimony of 
Lafifan. He is positive that he saw the child in the house of 
Dunmaine in the care of his mother, the Lady Altham, befoi^ 
the separation. 

The counsel for the defendant finding that we had proved 
the lessor of the plaintiff to be the son of Lord Altham by his 
lady, have endeavoured as much as they could to overturn this 
evidence by pretending he was the son of Joan Landy ; but 
I hope we have satisfied your lordships and the gentlemen of the 
jury that their testimony in this respect is very consistent. 
William Ehns has been produced, who swore that Joan Landy 's 
child was brought home to Dunmaine after the separation. 
Martin Neif and William Knowles swear likewise, that the 
child was brought home after the separation ; but Anthony 
Dyer contradicts these witnesses. He says he stayed three- 
quarters of a year after the separation, came up to Parliament 
with Lord Altham, and never saw a child at Dimmaine. Aaron 
Lambert said he never saw a child in the house, and when 
some of the witnesses were asked, was there a child in the 
house or was there not? then comes the evasion. If there was 
a child in the house it was imputed to the coachman, a circum- 
stance which bespoke perjury, because of their endeavouring 
to ward off that blow. So that these witnesses clashing with 
the rest must throw an imputation on their testimony. 

Elizabeth MoUoy says she was applied to in order to dry- 
nurse Joan Landy's child, but could not fix a time ; and further 
said she would dry-nurse children of ten years old, which is 
a thing very uncommon. Ann Caulfield said she saw Joan 
Landy's child at nurse, and that she saw Lord Altham after the 
separation call to see a boy at Fuilong's School ; yet when she 
was cross-examined whether it was the same child she saw at 
school that she saw at nurse, she said she could not take upon 
herself to swear that for the whole world. I have trouble<i 
your lordshif)S in mentioning those witnesses which the de- 
fendant produced to show how uncertain they are in their 
evidence, and therefore that there can be no dependence upon 
them. 

But, my lords, let the gentlemen of the other side say there 
was or there was not a child at the house of Dunmaine. We 
have proved that Lady Altham's child was there, .-md Red- 
mond.s and Broen, who wore examined for the plaintiff, swear 
Joan Laii'ly's child was dead and buried several years ago, 
which entirely overturns tho pretence of tho defendant that 
the lessor of plaintiff is Landy's child. It lias been proved 
t/> your lorrlshijis that lyonl Altliam treated tho lessor of the 

301 



The Anneslcy Case. 



SeHeant plaintiff as his lawful son and heir. The testimony of Mr. 

Tisdaii ^fisset, and the conversation he had with Ijord Altham at 
Kinnca, in the county of Kildare, prove this beyond all con- 
tradiction ; and Mrs. Annesley sup{K>rts his testimony by the 
account she gives of her and her brother's drinking the child's 
heiilth in Lord Altham's presence when his lordship lived at 
Kinnea. Surely such conversation would not be introduced 
in compimy of a relation of the family if the child was in- 
tended to be imposed on them. She further says the legiti- 
macy of the plaintiff was never doubted of in the oounti-y, 
and as she was allied to the family her evidence must be of 
great weight to overturn the evidence of Mr. Medlicott. The 
evidence of Mr. Charles Byrne and James Cavanagh proves 
to demonstration that the child was looked upon at Carrick- 
duff as the legitimate son of Lord Altham. Therefore, how 
can your lordships or the gentlemen of the jui-y believe the 
testimony of Martin Neif, who said that the boy was reputed 
a bastard, and had too much of the blood of the Landys in 
him? (Consequently Neif's testimony must be rejected. So 
that, I say, by adding all the plaintiff's proofs together, 
there cannot be the least colour to doubt the legitimacy of 
the plaintiff. 

Both Mr. Byrae and Plunkett say that he was looked upon 
in Proper Lane to be the legitimate son of Lord Altham, and 
the influence Miss Gregory had over my lord (when he lived 
there) is likewise proved by Hei'd, and it is natural to suppose 
she suggested things to Lord Altham to his disadvantage. 
Mr. Plunkett tells your lordships he interceded with Lord 
Altham for him when complaints were made against the child 
by Miss Gregory, therefore it is easy to be believed that it 
was on her account he afterwards became totally neglected. 
As to the testimony of Mrs. Mullen, who says that the child 
made answer to her at the funeral of the late Lord Altham that 
he was Joan Landy's son, there cannot be the least reliance on 
her credit, because the child always asserted his legitimacy, 
and Mr. Hawkins, king-at-arms, refused enrolling the de- 
fendant on account of the behaviour of the child, and his 
crying at the funeral. Mr. Bush and Mr. Tighe and Purcell 
say he convinced them of his legitimacy. 

As to Mrs. Heath, she comes from a distant country. What 
inducement she might have to give evidence against Mr. 
Annesley must be only known to herself. She might have 
imposed on Lady Altham, as it appears that it was from her 
only that Lady Altham i-eceived information to neglect the 
child, and she may still continue averse to him. 

As to what is observed by the gentlemen of the other side, 
to show the improbability of Reilly's, the servant, evidence, 
from the short space of time of going from George's Quay to 
302 



Speeches. 



Inchicore and coming back to the quay, that was an affair Serjeant 
that required expedition, he must be supposed to make all 'r*^'**" 
the despatch he could. And as to what Reilly said, that the 
defendant was on the quay when he was sent for the guinea, 
and afterwards in an hour and a half found him there at his 
return, this is not repugnant to what Byrne says, that the 
boy was put into a boat about a quarter of an hour after he 
came to the quay, for it may be very well pi^sumed that the 
defendant might be on the quay when he sent ReiUy for the 
guinea, in order to fix a boat to carry the boy to the ship, 
and after that go back to Ormond Market to Jones's, and 
return to the quay at the time Reilly brought him the guinea. 
But, I believe, the gentlemen of the other side will not deny 
that the transportation is proved to a demonstration, which 
shows the violent resentment the defendant conceived against 
Mr. Annesley, the lessor of the plaintiff, and the evil mind of 
the defendant, still implacable, so as even to lay out £800 
to prosecute him in order to take away his life to prevent 
him from ever enjoying his birthright, which the defendant 
has unjustly possessed. Therefore I say to evei-y impartial 
man this must be the strongest argument of the defendant's 
consciousness of the lessor of the plaintiff's unquestionable 
right. And I make no doubt but the gentlemen of the jury 
will be of the same opinion, and consider this affair without 
any regard to any other person not before the Court at 
present, and give a verdict for Mr, Annesley, the lessor of 
the plaintiff. 

Mr. Philip Walsh, covmsel for the lessor of the plaintiff" — My Mr. Walsh 
lords, and you gentlemen of the jury, it is not to be expected that 
the lessor of the plaintiff, from the many disadvantages he 
laboui's under, can lay such full proofs of his birth before the 
jurj', or fix his title as well as if he had been always in the 
kingdom. On the other hand, the defendant has had full time 
to prepare his witnesses, as he was alarmed by the account of 
my client's returning fi-om the West Indies and intending to 
claim the Anglesea estate. As this point has been so well 
discussed by the plaintiff's counsel who spoke before me, I 
shall not take up mucli of your lordships' or the jury's time. 

Your lordships will please to consider that the defendant, as 
administrator to Arthur, late Ix>rd Altham, has got all the 
papers in his hands, which could give further light into this 
affair ; therefore the strongest indulgence is to be shown to 
all the evidence given at this distance of time on the part of 
the lessor of the j»laintiff. 'Hie only point in question is the 
legitimacy of the lessor of the plaintiff, which lie has proved 
by f>ositive evidence, and therel)y wip<jd off all that cloud of 
infamy that the defendant would endeavour to tluow on him. 

303 



The Anncsley Case. 



Mr. Walsh I shall now beg leave to make a few observations on some 
of the defendant's evidence and on the declarations of the 
defendant, which show plainly his evil disposition towards the 
lessor of tlie plaintiff. First, I would remark, with respect 
to Mrs. Heath, t)ecanse she is the defendant's principal witness, 
and if sho is overturned all tlie rest must fall to the ground. 
Mrs. Heath agrees to the cause of the miscarriage (which waa 
the breaking of the saucers), but not to the effect. Sho 
likewise contirms MacCormick's testimony that Lucas, the 
midwife, was intended to be sent for. She says my Lady 
Altham never kept her room one day, which is contradicted 
by Mr. Lambert. What she and Mrs. Giffard say as to the 
Wexford assizes is contradicted by Mr. Colclough. 

Colonel Palliser owns he was often laid up with the gout, and 
often absent from his house in the Great Island, consequently 
could not be certain what happened at Dimmaine. Mr. 
Palliser, his son, induces a suspicion of bearing a resentment 
in his mind from the marks of infamy he received, which, if 
it was in a judicial way, he could not be believed in any 
Court of law. Herd's testimony in relation to Proper Lane 
is outweighed by the evidence of Plunkett axid both the Byrnes. 
He further swears that Lord Altham declared he would not 
for £500 the child should know that Joan Landy was his 
mother. Neif swears that when my lord corrected him he 
always told him of his mother, Joan Landy. He also swears 
the child went by the name of James Landy. It is somewhat 
extraordinary that my lord should upbraid the boy with his 
mother, Joan Landy, and yet declare that he would not for £500 
that the boy should know that Joan Landy was his mother. 

Furlong is very ridiculous in his testimony, and Downes is 
discredited by Ryan. Beckett is a most uncertain witness in 
his account about Vice's and Inchicore. Colonel Harman is 
likewise uncertain. Mr. Medlicott's account is somewhat 
extraordinary, for if Lord Altham made use of those declara- 
tions he mentioned a long time ago, yet he says he never 
reflected on them till the last Curragh races. Napper could 
not know anything of the point in question, because he owns 
the late Lord Anglesea directed him never to go to Dunmaine. 

As the plaintiff's counsel have observed so fully on our 
witnesses, I shall beg leave to offer a few thoughts to the 
consideration of the jury. Mr. Higginson wanted not the 
year of the eclipse, or the time of the Pretender's 
men being tried at the assizes of Wexford. He produces his 
book to put that matter out of dispute. The testimony of 
Colonel Pigot, of the reputation of the country, should have 
very great weight, and confirms the positive testimony of 
Scott of his being sent on messages from Mrs. Pigot con- 
cerning the child. It is not common to send how-do-you's to 

304 



Speeches. 



a bastard son. Lord Mount Alexander mentions the pai'ticular ftr. Walsh 
account of Lady Altham's having a child. The veracity of 
these -witnesses is unquestionable. Hodge's testimony is con- 
firmed by ilrs. Heath, which must have weight. Lutwich is 
not attacked in his character. 

On the whole, your lordships will please to consider the 
testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses is attended with such con- 
sistency of time and place that it must outweigh the wandering 
and uncertain evidence of the defendant's witnesses. Is it 
reasonable that Lord Altham should set up a bastard son for 
his legitimate child, there being at the same time a proba- 
bility of his having lawful issue? 

I must now beg leave to take notice of some declarations of 
the defendant, which plainly point out his malice and resent- 
ment towards the lessor of the plaintiff. Joan Laffan has 
proved that the Chi'istmas Eve after the separation the de- 
fendant was at Dunmaine House, and, not seeing the child, 
said to the witness, where is Jemmy 1 or, where is my brother's 
child? How did his mother behave at parting with him? 
Laffan answered that Lady Altham had requested very earnestly 
to have the child with her, whereupon the defendant made use 
of an extraordinary oath, that he would not have his brother 

keep any of the breed, but pack them both to the d 1. 

The late Lord Altham's character and circumstances are to 
be considered by the jury, and Miss Gregory's influence by 
some sort of a sham marriage (if I am rightly instructed) may 
account for his lordship's maltreatment of the child, and she 
might persuade him into a notion that, though the child was 
the son of Lady Altham, yet that he was not begotten by him. 
There was a further reason, that my lord being tenant for life 
might give out that he had no son, in order the more easily 
to sell reversions by his brother's joining with him. This 
might be more easily effected as the child had no relations 
or friends, but those that were aiming at his title and honour, 
and who imagined that if he who was a bar to their interest 
and ambition was removed they then might be sure of making 
every advantage they long thirsted after. 

Though the plaintiff was young at the time of his trans- 
|)ortation, it has afipeared in proof that he did all that was 
in his power to let the world know that he was the legitimate 
son and heir of the late Lord Altham. Did lie not even at 
his father's funeral lament his death in the most piteous 
manner and assert his title? And was not Mr. Hawkins, 
the king at arms, so moved thereby tliat he refused enrolling 
the defendant as Lord Altham in the list of jieers? This 
inducer] thf^ defendant to sliow tlie strongest resentment, 
which he did, threatening to transport him as an impostor and 
a vagabond, assigning the scandalous pretence of his having 
X 305 



The Annesley Case. 



Mr. Walsh stolen a silver spoon; and then, in an unnatural and illegal 
manner, he makes an attempt on the son of his brother, kidnaps 
him in his tender years, four months after his father's death, 
and afterwards, with a most unaccountable indifference, tells 
Mr. Ash, his attorney (as Mr. Ash declared on his examina- 
tion) only that the boy was gone. It is pretty remarkable 
that the gentlemen on the other side did not think it proper 
to cross-examine Mr. Ash as to that particular. 

Your lordships will please to consider that Lady Altham 
was in a dead palsy before she left Ireland, which impaired 
her understanding, and that she continued so till death, and 
was thereby confined to her room. From this unhappy con- 
dition she might not loiow when Lord Altham died. And if 
she did, as ehe was in a state of distress and dependence, 
she was in no condition to assert the right and support the 
interest of her son. 

I should, my lords, be glad to throw a veil over the defend- 
ant's misconduct in an affair of a deeper dye, but in justice 
to my client I cannot help mentioning to your lordships 
and the gentlemen of the jury what illegal means the defendant 
made use of to cause the lessor of the plaintiff to be prosecuted 
with the utmost severity, and to aim at his life in so extra- 
ordinary a manner. It appears^ that the defendant was at 
first touched with the qualms of a troubled mind, and deter- 
mined to surrender to the lessor of the plaintiff his right and 
title if he was allowed £3000 a year to live on in France. To 
qualify him for this scheme of life he was instructed by a 
French master in the language of that country. This disposi- 
tion to do justice was not of long continuance. An unfortu- 
nate accident subjected Mr. Annesley to a prosecution, by an 
unhappy chance of shooting a man. Upon this all remorse is 
dissipated, the late kind intentions vanish, the defendant 
values not if it cost him £10,000 so he could have the plaintiff 
hanged, and for that purpose he makes no difficulty to expend 
£800. When he is disappointed in this another expedient 
must be found. When the plaintiff's life is out of his reach, 
his character, his birth is to be impeached, and he is to be 
deemed the spurious offspring of a poor kitchen wench. It 
is plain to every man that has heard anything of this affair 
that nothing but the strongest conviction of the plaintiff's 
right could have spirited the defendant up to such a complica- 
tion of iniquity. 

It is true the defendant's counsel have varnished over their 
case with a very glaring show with a view of influencing the 
gentlemen of the jury, but they are of that honour and integ- 
rity that they will weigh the affair with the justest nicety. 
And now I shall conclude with the words in the gospel which 
306 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

the defendant has adopted to himself, "This is the heir, Mr. Walsh 
<MDme let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours." 
But thank the Almighty, the over-r\iling hand of Providence 
has protected the lessor of the plaintiff, and I hope the jurors 
will think he is entitled to a verdict. 

Here ended the arguments of counsel for both parties, about 
ten o'clock on Wednesday night, and the Court by the like 
■consent as usual adjourned to twelve o'clock next day. 



Friday, 25th November, 1743. 

The Court being met according to adjournment, and the 
jury having appeared as usual, the Lord Chief Baron Bowes 
summed up the evidence in the following charge : — 

Lord Chief Bargjs^ — Gentlemen of the jury, we are now Lord 
come to the last period of this vei-y important trial, and 
after having attended to a longer evidence than ever was 
known upon a trial at law you, gentlemen, by your verdict 
must determine a question of ag great consequence both as 
to property and title as ever came before a jury. 

I did apprehend when this trial began that it would run 
out to a great length, and therefore apprised you of what I 
thought must, be the consequence, that the Court would not 
be able minutely to sum up the evidence upon this as upon 
like occasions, and therefore recommended it to you to make 
and enter your o\sti observations as the evidence should be 
laid before you. But when I consider your exemplarj' 
behaviour during the course of this long trial, the attention 
you have given, an4- the desire you have expressed to do 
justice, I think it incumbent upon the Court, as far as they 
can, to be aiding and assisting to you in this your search 
after truth. To this end I shall, though very briefly and 
imj^erfectly, lay Ix^fore you what hath occurred to me, which 
I shall do in this method. I shall endeavour by way of 
narrative to collect the facts that have been sworn to on 
hoth sides ; I shall next mention the objections, as far as I 
have taken them, that have been made to the credit of the 
resix-'ctive witnesses, together with some observations that 
may assist you in judging how far those objections ought to 
weigh with you. And as it will appear in tlio course of tliis 
evidence that there have been inconsistencies, and, in the 
most material facts, direct contradictions, I shall therefore 
take notice of those circumstances attending this case 

307 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord which may throw a probabihtv or improbability upon the 

Chief Baron ..• ', ,, •' ^ J t 

tostimony you have Jieard. 

The action to he tried is an ejectment brought for lands in 
the county of Meath, and by the admisison of the counsel 
for the defendant the plaintiff's title is brought to a single 
question, whether the lessor, Mr. James Annesley, be the 
legitimate issue of Arthur, late Lord Altham? It is admitted 
on both sides that the plaintiff and defendant claim the lands 
in question under the will of James, Earl of Anglesea, and 
tbat by such will the limitation to the heirs male of the body 
of Arthur, late Lord Altham, is prior to the remainder limited 
to the defendant ; and, therefore, if plaintiff can prove that 
he is the legitimate issue of Arthur, late Lord Altham, a 
verdict must be found for the lessor of the plaintiff ; but if 
he fail then there is an undoubted title in the defendant, 
being the person next in remainder under the will of James, 
Earl of Anglesea, and a verdict must be found for him. 

Gentlemen, the question being a mere matter of fact, the 
plaintiff's counsel have proceeded to lay their evidence before 
you in the following manner : — They have given evidence to 
induce a probability that Mary, the wife of Arthur, late Lord 
Altham, might have had a child, and that, by examining 
Mrs. Dorothy Briscoe and Mrs. Henrietta Cole, alias Briscoe, 
to show that there was a reconciliation between the Lord 
and Lady Altham some time in the year 1713 ; that they came 
together and cohabited at the house of their father in Bride 
Street, from whence they went to one Mrs. Vice's in Essex 
Street, and from thence to Dunmaine ; and there another 
cii'cumstance arises', which is that Mrs. Cole and her mother, 
being invited to Dunmaine, w^ent thither, and while they 
were there, upon an accident, which has been so often repeated 
that I shall not go into the particulars of it, Lady Altham was 
frighted, and in consequence of that fright miscarried ; and 
the same witness, Mi-s. Cole, swears that she saw an abortion. 
They have also produced Catharine MacCormick to show a second" 
miscarriage, in the same summer with that mentioned bj' 
Mrs. Cole. The circumstances of that likewise have been 
so often repeated that I only mention the fact. Having done 
this, the plaintiff proceeded to show an actual pregnancy in 
Mary, Lady Altham. The evidence for this was Alice Bates, 
the servant of Mrs. Briscoe, who was admitted to intimacy 
with Lady Altham, and to whom it was told by Lord Altham, 
and acknowledged by Lady Altham ; and who further swears 
the pregnancy was such that she did observe it, and by 
laying her hand upon the belly of Lady Altham, she took 
upon her to say that Lady Altham was big with child. I 
do not as I go along take notice of the objections to the 
308 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

respective witnesses, in tendinis to consider them together. In Lord 

• Chief B&pon 

the next place, they have endeavoured to prove circumstances 

preparatory to the delivery of Lady Altham. Dennis Redmonds 

tells you that he vras sent for the midwife, and Thomas 

Brooks that he was sent for as a surgeon to let her blood at 

the time of her labour ; and Dennis Redmonds and Philip 

Breen both speak to their observing that Lady Altham was 

pregnant before this time And, gentlemen, it did appear 

that these two were servants about the house, though in a 

very low station ; the one, I think, a helper in the garden, 

the other one in the stables. 

The next period is the actual delivery, and for that they 
have produced two positive witnesses — the one Mary Doyle, 
a servant in the family ; the other Eleanor Murphy, who calls 
herself a chambermaid. Both these swear they were in the 
room at the time of the delivery, and as far as their testimony 
shall avail are positive witnesses to the fact. The next 
are the circumstances consequent upon the deliveiy, that were 
evidences of it. The first is spoken of by Breen and one or 
two more, and that is the rejoicings that were made upon 
the birth of this heir. The next was the christening, which 
is sworn to by the two maids that I mentioned before, who 
also swear that Mr. Colclough and Mr. Cliff were godfathers, 
Mrs Pigot godmother, and that Mr. Lloyd was the clergyman 
that officiated in the christening of this child. The next is 
Christopher Brown, who was a servant attending upon one 
Mr. Anthony Cliff, not the Cliff that was the godfather, but 
an invited guest, and he speaks to being there at that 
time and attending his master at the table at the entertain- 
ment that was made on the occasion. John Scott, a servant, 
I think, of Mr. Pigot's, he speaks to a subsequent time after 
the delivery, and says that after his return with his master 
from England, he was sent a dozen times, as he has sworn, 
to this house with messages and compliments to the lady, 
and to know how the child did. 

Gentlemen, it will be material for you to observe that tlie 
birth to which this evidence has been applied has been fixed 
by the witnesses, and admitted by the plaintiff's counsel, to 
have hapjjened in the beginning of summer, 1715, which the 
witnesses have also explained to be about the month of May. 
There were two witnesses more proj>er for me to take notice 
of, but I shall not give you their evidence by way of testimony 
l>ecau3e they seem to differ from all the rest. The on© was 
that of Charles MacCarthy, who was brought to provo the 
pregnancy of Lady Altliam, and something furtlier, but he 
•set out from a [K.'rio<l of tirao so different from tho other 
witnesses that the counsel for the jilaintiff did not think 

.309 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord pro}>er to proceed in the examination of him, nor have the 

aron (,oi„^spj f^j. ^j^^^ defendant made any use of him. The next 
I shall lay aside is Major Fiti^gerald, whose evidence was to 
the declaration of Lord Altham, the day my lady was in labour, 
and the invitation he had to go and tap the groaning drink, 
and his excuse for not going, as it was an improper time; 
the invitation iic had to go the next day ; that he went, dined 
there, but did not lie there ; that the child was brought down 
to him, and that he gave the nurse half a guinea; but then 
he fixes this in harvest, and therefore no advantfige has been 
taken of that examination by the plaintiff. The defendant, 
indeed, has made use of it, which I shall take notice of in the 
objections. 

The next evidence, gentlemen, has been to show the disposi- 
tions that were made relating to the child thus brought into 
the world ; and, indeed, I should have mentioned before the 
evidence of Matthew Furlong, who applied for having his wife 
employed as nurse to that child. But, gentlemen, the same 
evidence for the plaintiff that swore to the christening, the 
same evidence that w-ere about the house, and present at the 
bii-th, have gone further, and told you that one Joan Landy 
was appointed the nurse for this child, and they have all of 
them given this account of Joan Landy, that she was a person 
unmarried, that was wath child, and supposed to be so by Lord 
Altham, that Avas turned away, as some say, upon my lady's 
coming down ; as others say, before my lady came into that 
country — this person was chosen to be the nurse. She had 
a place of residence, the cabin that was built by her father, 
a quarter of a mile from the house of Dunmaine, which, as 
the witnesses for the plaintiff tell you, was fitted up upon the 
occasion of receiving her and this child. Laffan has told 
you that a room was added ; others that the cabin was white- 
washed and beautified, but speak not of the room ; but all agree 
that this nurse had the child there, and that for the convenience 
of visiting this child a road for the coach was made from 
Dunmaine House to this place. They tell you that the child 
remained with her till Joan Laffan comes into play as dry- 
nurse. And Joan Laffan says she came into the family when 
the child was three or four months old, and she has fixed 
her coming to harvest after the King came to the Crown, and 
that it was put into her care about three months before the 
separation of Lord and Lady Altham, and continued in her 
care so long as it continued at Dunmaine, and that the child 
was carried from her to Kinnea, in the county of Kildare, and 
that it was about three or four years old at the time it went 
to Kinnea. They have introduced as evidence the declarations 
of Lord and Lady Altham, in respect to Lady Altham's having 
a child, and in respect to Lord Altham's acknowledging that 
310 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up . 

child. The earliest in point of time is that of Alderman Lord 

Bams of Kilkenny, who says that it was in the beginning ^^^^^ Baron 

of the summer, and, by his account, not long after the birth. 

He tells you the occasion of his going to Eoss, and that there 

he met with Lord Altham ; that my lord took him into an 

upper room, and disclosed his mind by telling him, " Tom, I 

will tell you good news ; I have a sou by Moll Sheffield " ; that 

he went next day to my lord's house, but that he did not 

see the child, nor did he hear either my lord or lady speak 

of it whilst he was there ; but at last did say that he believed 

the child's health might be drank at the table. The next 

witness that I shall mention upon this head was Edward 

Lutwich, and he speaks to the seeing of a child at Ross, for 

whom my Lady Altham had bespoke two pair of shoes which 

he was to make, and when he brought them home he inquired 

for the young lord, and they told him he was gone back to 

Dunmaine, upon which Lady Altham broke out into this 

exclamation, " It had been better for me to have been the 

wife of the poorest tradesman in Eoss than my Lord Altham' s, 

for then I could see my child eveiy day, but now I can see him 

but by stealth." Gentlemen, the witnesses for the plaintiff 

that were in the house, and conversant in the family, tell you 

that my lord did always acknowledge this child to be his lawful 

son ; that this child was shown as such to the persons that 

came to the house to visit, and some tell you that they often 

saw the child in or about the house. 

I mentioned, gentlemen, the child's being removed to Kinnea, 
in the county of Kildare, and this was after the separation 
of Lady Altham from my lord. When the child was brought 
to Kinnea they have gone on by evidence to show you that 
there he was treated as the son of my lord by Lady Altham. 
For this they have produced Mr. Misset, who tells you that 
there w^as a child that he took to be about six years old ; that 
he went to a school in the neighbourhood, and was considered 
as the child of Lord Altham ; that it was called the young 
lord; that it was sent to school with a servant, and that he 
remembers it particularly by an open lace upon his hat, which 
he believes was the first and last that had ever been at that 
school. Whilst he was at Kinnea, as that witness says, the 
child was treate<l by my lord as his son, and Mrs. Annesley, 
a relation of the family, who lives in the neigh bourhoo<l of 
Kinnea, tells you that her brother, Colonel Geoffrey Paul, a 
gentleman well known to most persons here, used to visit my 
lord, and my lord to visit him, and tliat lier brotlier used 
at table to drink the boy's health as my lord's son ; and says 
that she was sure, from the knowledge she ha<l of her brother, 
that if he had suspected that he was the illegitimate son of 
Lord Altham, ho wotild not have done him the honour to havo 

3n 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord drank his he«ilth. and that she never heard he was the illegiti- 

mate son till of late that he has boon called so on account of 
this present disjmte. 

The next place the child -was carried to was Carrickdutf, in 
the county of Carlow, and there you have had several witnesses 
to prove him the legitimate son, viz., two Cavanaghs, James 
Dempsey, and Mr. Charles Byrne, who all swear to this child's 
being thei-e acknowledged as my lord's lawful son, and that 
they had no doubt upon them at that period of time concerning 
his being so, and it appears that Dempsey was taken in to 
teach the child, and afterwards kept school, where the child 
was constantly sent. 

From hence they have carried him to Dublin, to my Lord 
Altham's house in Cross Lane, and here Catherine O'Neill, 
who was the person that brought him, gives you an account of 
the identity of the person, and likewise of his being acknow- 
ledged as the son of Lord Altham. And Nicholas Duffe, who 
kept a public-house, and was a chairman in this town, who 
was frequently with my lord (and I think I may, once for 
all, observe that this unhappy nobleman did not distinguish 
his company as became one of his rank and quality), tells you 
that my lord has mentioned this boy to him as one that would 
one day be Lord Altham, and another time in discourse told 
him he would be Earl of Anglesea. From Cross Lane (there 
is something mentioned of Stephen's Green, but I could not 
collect at what period of time he was there), the next place 
he is removed to with certainty is Frapper Lane, and there he 
is some time with his father, is put to school to one Garth, 
and is known to several people in that neighbourhood. To 
this you have the evidence of the two Byrnes and Matthew 
Plunkett, who swear that he was treated as the son of Lord 
Altham, though the care of him seems to lessen at that place, 
for in Cross Lane you hear of Miss Gregory, and more of her 
in Frapper Lane, and to her they have imputed the neglect 
shown to this son. From hence my lord moves to Inchicore, 
about the month of August, 1724, at which time the child, 
then about nine years of age, was left by his father. The 
evidence speak of his being sent immediately to the house 
of one Mrs. Cooper. Here the evidence begins to be less 
connected than before, but I shall mention it as given. 
Michael Waldron and Dunn say he was put to school to the said 
Dunn, who also swears to the person, and that he was put to 
school by one Cavanagh, a dancing master; that he afterwards 
saw Lord Altham at Cavanagh's, and that Lord Altham 
promised to pay him for his care of him. It was before this 
period of time that Byrne, junior, speaks of his coming to 
him, and the care he took of his schoolfellow, and the destitute 
condition he was then in. After this the first account that I 
312 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

think is given of him is that of Mr. Amos Bush, who speaks Lord 
of him as a boy loitering about the college, who got his sub- ® 
sistence by running of en-ands by the name of a scull ; that, 
moved by his story, he was taken in by the humanity of this 
young gentleman, and that he had intentions to do for him if 
his grandfather would have permitted him to keep the lad. 
The next account we have of him is from Farrell. He tells 
you that he received him for a little while into his house, 
and that at the request of his father, and gives an account 
how he handed him over to Purcell. And Purcell tells you 
the care he and his wife took of him, and that they both 
considered him as the lawful son of Lord Altham. The boy 
left Purcell's ungratefully after the treatment he met with 
there, and the next news of him w^as at the house of Mr. Tighe, 
taken in by his son. This in point of time must have been 
soon after the death of Lord Altham, which happened in 
November, 1727, and in the February following this boy, 
about thirteen years of age, was missing, without any previous 
quarrel, and, as the witness soon after heard, was sent to the 
West Indies. 

Gentlemen, the plaintiff, after this, thought it necessaiy to 
give some evidence to account how a child that had been 
acknowledged by the father as his lawful son came to be 
treated in this manner, and you will observe that one of the 
witnesses, Plunkett, says that in Frapper Lane Miss Gregoiy 
lived with Lord Altham as a mistress, that she complained of 
this boy, and that he was coiTCcted. Indeed, he does say that 
the boy owned the fault that he was charged with, and a 
witness produced for the defendant, Arthur Herd, tells you 
what the offences were and the immoderate correction that 
was given to this boy. And other witnesses have told you 
that my lord, Miss Gi-egory, and the boy did not agree, and 
that Lord Altham could have no peace whilst the boy was in 
the house. 

Gentlemen, the next fact that the counsel for the plaintiff 
have thought proper to ayiply their evidence to has l)een to 
show that this boy, at the time he was taken from Mr. Tighe's, 
was Bent out of the kingdom by the procurement of the now 
def*,'ndant, and that by force, about hve months after Lord 
Altham's death. He, as has been said, died in November, 
1727, and the boy was taken away the February following. 
And, gentlemen, hh this seems to be a controverted fact, I 
shall mention the evidence particularly. The first account 
is that which Purcell gives, that after the child had the small- 
pox the present defendant came to his house inquiring aJt">r 
this boy ; that he there called him the son of Lord Altham, 
his brother; that the boy cried, and said be was afraid of his 
uncle. Captain Annesley ; mid that Captain Annesley told 

3'3 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord rurc-ell he would speak to my lord and induce him to make him 

Chief Baron, J ijandsome consideration for his car© oi' the child. Some 
time after this, ami after my Lord Altham's death, the boy 
came to Purcell and told him his mistress had sent him, for 
that man had come to his house from his uncle desiring him to 
go to the house of one Jones in the market, and that she de- 
sired Mr. Purcell to go along with him. He tells you that he 
went thither, and that he met this Captain Annesley there, 
and the expressions that were made use of by him in order 
to take away this boy ; and he tells you that he rescued and 
carried home the boy. The next account that they give you 
is by one Mark Byrne, a constable at that time, who tells 
you that he was applied to by one John Donnelly, who told 
him that he had a job, for which he was to have a guinea, 
which was to set this boy, and bring him to Lord Altham ; 
that accordingly they carried him to the house of this same 
Jones ; that Lord Altham was there ; that he accused him of 
stealing a silver spoon, and ordered them to take away the 
thieving son of a whore ; that accordingly they took him away, 
and in carrying him to George's Quay, as they were directed, 
that there was a crowd gathered ; that the boy cried ; that 
they put him in a hackney coach, which they met near Essex 
Bridge, and carried him to the place appointed on George's 
Quay ; that my lord followed on foot ; and there he tells you 
that he saw one Reilly, a servant of Lord Altham's, and that 
my lord went into the boat with Reilly, the boy, and Donnelly ; 
that they went oflf, and that he saw them go to the end of the 
Wall. The next person produced was Reilly, and he agrees 
in the material circumstances, which w-ere that he saw this 
boy on George's Quay, that he went into the boat with my 
lord and the boy, and that my lord and th© boy went on board 
the ship ; that the boy was left behind in the ship, and by 
the time the boat retui-ned it was night. Gentlemen, there 
is, to be sure, a difficulty to reconcile the testimony of this 
Reilly, but I shall speak to that when I speak to the objec- 
tions made to the witnesses. 

The next evidence they produced on this head was to show 
that a ship called the "James," of Dublin, Thomas Hendry, 
master, sailed over the bar of Dublin the 30th of April, 1728. 
The ship was entered in the Custom House book the 18th, and 
the evidence afterwards show that it sailed the 30th. Mr. 
Babe, the proper officer, produced the book, and there this 
entry did appear, with this addition, that the entry was made 
by Mr. Stevenson, a merchant in this town. The next step 
they took was to show from the books of Mr. Stevenson that 
this boy did actually sail on board that ship, and produced 
Mr. Crommy, at that time clerk to Mr. Stevenson, in order 
to show you that this boy did actually sail on board this 

314 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

ehip. He tells you that this ship was partly freighted by Lord 
Mr. Stevenson ; that it was bound to Philadelphia ; that the ^^*®* Baron 
principal part of the cargo were men and maidservants. He 
produced Mr. Stevenson's book of entries, and, this book 
being read as evidence, the title of it was " An account of men 
and women-servants on board the ship ' James,' which went 
over the bar of Dublin the 30th of April, 1728." Gentlemen, 
there was a long list of names, and among the rest was that 
of James Annesley ; and, gentlemen, this Crommy was cross- 
examined as to the manner of putting servants on board in 
order to show you that it was impossible this James Annesley 
could have been put on board without his free consent, for 
that the way of dealing was to have servants indentured before 
the Lord Mayor, and the custom was to have one 
part of the indentures delivered to the servant, the other 
of the master of the ship, and the name enrolled in the 
" Tholsel " books. But it appeared from his evidence that 
the list produced and kept by the merchant was not taken 
from the indentures or the books of the town-clerk, but that 
the method of taking such list was that the night before the 
ship sailed the clerk of Mr. Stevenson went on board, and the 
master gave him the names of the persons on board, and from 
that list this enti-y was made in the merchant's books. So 
that from this account it was very possible for persons to be 
sent away that had never indentured. In order to show 
that this boy was really indentured, the counsel for the de- 
fendant produced the original book kept by the town-clerk, 
in which are entered by the town-clerk the names of the 
persons who indent for foreign service, before my Lord Maj'or, 
in which was enteied the name James Hennsley, and insisted 
that it was the same person, though wrong spelt, and that the 
plaintiff had indentured in the regular way, and was carried 
off, not by force, but according to law. But, gentlemen, I 
must observe to you that the manner of indenting is such that 
wherever a f^rson of tender years, as this child was, being 
about thirteen years old, was to indent, it is always expected 
that the parent, or somebody that can answer for that child, 
should be there consenting to that indenture, or that some 
account should be given concerning him. I mention this 
because no evidence has been produced by the defendant to 
sliow who were present, and you will consider whether it was 
not in the power of Lord Anglesea to have pro<luccd the town- 
clerk himself, who made the entry, and is now living, and 
whose knowledge of the Anglesea family was such that uyion 
his memory he might have given some light into tluH affair, and 
probably could not, have rni.sspolt the name of Annesley, with 
which he was well acquainted. 

31S 



The Anncslcy Case. 



Lord Hut, to put this i'nct out of doubt, the plaintiflf produced 

e aron |^i|^,,.(jgg Ash, an attorney of the Court of Common Pleas who 
hud been employed by the defendant, the Earl of Anglesea, who 
tells you that upon the defendant's coming to the title of 
Lord Altham, by his brother's death, the boy was mentioned 
to his lordship by a gentleman in Ash's presence; that his 
lordship complained of the i-eproaches he underwent on the 
boy's account, and, in particular, said that Hawkins, who was 
king-at-arms, had refused to enroll his title as Lord Altham 
upon the clamour made by this boy, and thereupon called him 
impostor, vagabond, and, he believes, bastard. That Ash 
then told his lordship if the boy were a vagabond he might be 
obliged to indent before my Lord Mayor at the " Tholsel," 
and be trans{X)rted. And Ash further says that some time 
after he was again in company with the defendant at a tavern, 
with others of the defendant's intimates, when my Lord 
Anglesea, then Lord Altham, told the witness he was gone, 
meaning the boy, which, coupled with the former evidence, 
shows, as was insisted, that the defendant intended to put 
the plaintiff out of the way, and gives credit to the witnesses, 
who for his lordship executed such intention as before related. 

The plaintiflf went further to show that the defendant not 
only occasioned this person's being taken away, but upon the 
plaintiflf' s return into England, a misfortune befalling him by 
the accidental killing of a man at Staines. That opportunity 
was laid hold of to prosecute him, and under that colour to 
take away his life, for which purpose one John Giffard has been 
produced. He appears to have been an attorney of the Court 
of Common Pleas in England, and agent for the defendant. 
Some difficulty was made whether his evidence should be re- 
ceived, but the Court having admitted him to be examined with 
liberty to disclose what did not come to his knowledge as 
agent for the defendant. You gentlemen will not consider 
whether the divulging conversation be what is called honour- 
able between man or man, or whether the ill-treatment this 
person received from the defendant has induced him to appear 
to give testimony in this cause, but whether what he has sworn 
be true. 

This witness speaks to the declarations made by my Lord 
Anglesea at the time an appeal was depending between him 
and Captain Annesley before the Lords in England, upon 
which occasion the defendant said that it was bettor for him 
to throw up his titles, which he did not value, and to give up 
them and the estate, upon terms, to James Annesley, the 
plaintiflf, whose right they were; that he would go over to 
France and live there, where he should be much easier and 
happier than he was at that time. He tells you that this was 
repeated more than once; that it was not a sudden resolution, 
316 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

but the result of deliberate consideration, accompanied with Lord 
another act, -n-hicli was that of taking a person into his house ® *''°° 
to teach him the French tongue to qualify him to live in that 
kingdom. And the witness tells you, further, that the reason 
why this project was dropped was the accidental homicide com- 
mitted by the plaintiff, upon which Lord Anglesea changed his 
purpose, and resolved to prosecute him, and frequently de- 
clared that he would give £10,000 if he could get him hanged, 
for then he should be easy in his titles and estate, and that 
this prosecution cost Lord Anglesea £800. As I shall not 
touch this part of the evidence again, I must desire you gentle- 
men to consider whether the words sworn to be spoke by 
Lord Anglesea, as to giving up his estate, may not be accounted 
for as the rash expressions of a man distressed in his circum- 
stances ; but, gentlemen, if you believe the other two facts, that 
is, that Lord Altham did spirit away this youth, and that he 
did carry on this prosecution against him, the question will 
then be, what influence they ought to have upon this cause? 
And how far they ought to conclude against the defendant as 
to the fact in question will deserve your consideration, that 
the plaintiff may not suffer by the illegal acts of the defendant, 
nor the defendant be injured by your i-elying too much upon 
presumptive evidence. If the defendant did send away the 
plaintiff, that absence must be imputed to the defendant. 
The suppressor and the destroyer of evidence are to be con- 
sidered in the same light the law considers a spoliator as 
having destroyed the proper evidence, and against him de- 
fective proof, so far as he has occasioned such defect, shall 
be received, and everything presumed to make it effectual. 
Nay, I think you may by law go further, and if the plaintiff 
has given probable evidence of his being the legitimate son of 
Lord Altham, the proof may be turned on the defendant, and 
you may expect satisfaction from him, that Lord Altham, 
his brother, died without issue, and this on account of that 
evidence which the plaintiff must be supposed to have lost by 
the defendant's having so many years put it out of the plaintiff's 
power to assert his right. And you will also consider whether 
these acts are not evidence to satisfy you that the defendant, 
in hi.s own thoughts and way of reasoning, considered the 
Ht'iying of the boy here as what might someway prejudice his 
title. But whether, as insisted upon by the plaintiff's counsel, 
you ought to take this as an admission on the part of the 
defendant, that the plaintiff was the lawful son of Ix)rd Altham, 
will deserve further consideration. Undoubte<lly there is a 
violent presumption, because no man is supposed to be wicked 
without design, and the design in this act must be someway 
or other ix-lative to the title ; hut whether or no it was the 
opinion of the trouble he might have from this lad that in- 

3^7 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord duced him to do this act, or a consciousness that the lad was the 

Chief Baron ^^^^ ^^ Lord Altham, must be left to your determination, keep- 
ing in your mind that it, though violent, is but a presumption, 
and that the defendant has an undoubted title, unless it be 
proved that there be a son of his elder brother now living. 

Taking the influence of these wicked acts with you, I shall 
now briedy mention the nature of the defence, which has been, 
first of all, by many witnesses to show that the reputation of 
the countiy was against there being such a child. Colonel 
Loftus, who lived within eight miles of Dunmaine, who was 
a person of that rank and distinction in the counti-y as was 
likely to hear it, says he never heard of it. Colonel Palliser, 
Mr. and Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Palliser, Mrs. Giffard, have all 
gone likewise to the same point, and say that they never heard 
of a miscarriage. But their not hearing of a miscarriage has 
little weight, because things of that nature are conducted 
with privacy, and the report of them seldom reaches far. In 
the nest place, they have produced the persons who, they say, 
were the servants of the family at the time that this birth 
must have been. Mrs. Heath, my lady's woman ; Rolph, the 
butler, who was there during that time ; Anthony Dyer, who 
was a gentleman to my lord ; Martin Neif and Owen Cavanagh, 
servants in the family. G^entlemen, Mrs. Heath, Rolph, and 
Dyer, are all positive that there was no child, and that 
there could be no child without their knowledge, and Mrs. 
Heath goes so far as to say there never was so much as a 
pregnancy. These are positive evidences, that stand in direct 
contradiction to the plaintiff's witness-es. They have also 
pi-oduced William Knapper and William Elms to the same 
point, both conversant at Dunmaine. William Knapper in 
particular tells you he was employed by the late Earl of 
Anglesea to sell the Ross estate, which came to him upon 
Lord Altham's death without issue, and that though he made 
a hundred articles for leases of the Ross estate to the tenants 
he never heard one objection made that there was a son. 
They then went into another piece of evidence, which, if 
true, stands in the place of positive evidence, because incon- 
sistent with Lady Altham's being delivered of a child at the 
time deposed, and that was my Lord and Lady Altham's going 
to Wexford at the spring assizes, held the 16th of April, 1715, 
and returning from thence to Dunmaine, and going soon after 
to Dublin. Mrs. Giffard's account is this, that there being 
some men to be tried as Pretender's men, the curiosity of 
Lady Altham proposed a journey to Wexford, that she accom- 
panied my lady in the chariot, that my lord, Mrs. Heath, 
and Rolph rode. She says when they came to Wexford they 
lodged at the house of one Sweeney, that they went into Court 

318 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

and stayed there during the trial, and that Mr. Caesar Lord 
Colclough sat bv them part of the time; that they stayed a Cheif Baron 
week in Wexford, and then went home ; and, as appears by 
the examinations of Heath and Rolph, they went to Dublin 
in a very short time after and stayed there all the summer. 
Heath swears it positively, and Rolph that they stayed there 
till he went away. Now, gentlemen, if this fact could be 
established it would undoubtedly put an end to the con- 
troversy of this day, because if Lady Altham was at the 
assizes at Wexford, which appears to be the 16th of April, 
that she continued there a week, and went back and stayed 
but two or three weeks at Dunmaine and thence went to 
Dublin, where she lived the remainder of the summer ; and 
this being at the time when she was supposed to have been 
delivered of the plaintiff, you will consider if both can be 
true. But this fact has been disputed, and in this manner : 
First of all Ker, who was clerk to my Lord Chief Justice 
Foster, who went that circuit, tells you that he does not 
remember to have seen any ladies there. This is not a positive 
proof, but it is a circumstantial one. The next is Caesar 
Colclough, who swears that he does not i-emember to have 
seen them, and from the business he was engaged in, the 
gentleman on trial being his relation, he does not believe he 
sat by any woman that day. There were also two positive 
witnesses produced to prove that Lady Altham was not there, 
which were Turner and Higginson. Turner tells you that he 
was at the house of Dunmaine when my lord went to that 
assizes, that he saw him get into the coach, and that he saw 
my lady in the house after my lord was gone. Higginson 
tells you likewise that on the Tuesday of this assizes he was 
at Dunmaine, and the occasion that brought him thither 
(which makes him certain to the time) was to desire Lord 
Altham to send somebody to Lmiscorthy for the £28 arrear 
of rent which his son was to bring there. He tells you that 
he saw my lady, that she was undressed, and that he believes 
she was with child, and drank to her safe delivery. And 
there is one circumstance further ^\hich you should take with 
you, that Mrs. Heath says in her account the sister of Mrs. 
Giffard went with them, tliough Mrs. GifiFard said no one 
went with them but the jKirsons she named, but did not name 
her sister. 

The defendant has also, in order to account for what has 
l>een said by the plaintiff's witnesses as to the child taken 
in })y Ix)rd Altham after the separation, and who was carried 
]>y him from place to place and treated as his son, examined 
the several witnesses produced by them who were acquainted 
with Lord Altham and his family during the time the boy 

319 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord was with hiiu, to }iiovo that the boy kept by Lord Altham 

was tho son of Joan Landy by Lord Altham, as was supposed, 
and that he was always considered and treated by that lord 
as his bastard. And thus, gentlemen, you see how the 
witnesses produced in this cause stand as to the most material 
circumstances in direct opposition to each other, so that the 
one or the other must speak false. Which of them have done 
so, God only knows. You, gentlemen, must, after taking 
the whole into your consideration, say which in your opinion 
deserves credit. I shall now take notice of the objections 
to the witnesses on each side. 

The objections that have been made to the plaintiff's wit- 
nesses, as to their uncertainty with i-egard to time and place 
and other circumstances to which they were examined, wei^e 
also made to the witnesses for the defendant, and if an imputa- 
tion arises from thence you will consider whether it be not 
equal on both sides. In the next place, an objection is made 
to the condition of the evidence for the plaintiff, that they 
are servants of the lowest stations and meanest condition. 
You will consider how far that objection ought to lessen, much 
less take away, the credit of their testimony. Servants 
about the family, though in the meanest stations, were likely 
to know such particular facts as they have given evidence of. 
But on the other side you will consider that the fact in question 
is a single fact, which might be put into the mouth of any- 
body, and which has been affirmed and denied on oath by 
the respective witnesses. You will, therefore, I think, find 
it necessary with caution to attend to the objections made to 
the credit of the several witnesses that stand in opposition 
to each other. For instance, if the credit of Mrs. Cole can 
engage your belief as to the circumstance of the miscarriage, 
then Mrs. Heath has not sworn true, because she has sworn 
the contrary, and that to a fact which must have been 
observed by her. Again, if Mrs. Cole obtains credit, Mrs. 
Heath must be mistaken in another fact, though not of that 
consequence, and that is the removal to Dvmmaine. Mrs. 
Cole says, and Mrs. Briscoe too, that my Lord and Lady 
Altham w^ent to lodgings in Essex Street; Mrs. Heath, that 
they went directly from Captain Briscoe's to Dunmaine. Now, 
gentlemen, as to Mrs. Cole's and Mrs. Briscoe's testimony 
there is no imputation other than what arises from their age 
at the time to which their testimony relates, when the eldest 
of them could not be above thirteen by her own account, and 
she speaks to a fact which Mr. Prime Serjeant thinks was not 
likely to engage the attention of so young a person — I mean 
the place to which they removed. But you will consider 
whether the removal of my lord and his lady from their family 
320 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

to another place in Dublin, especially as an intimacy was Lord 

kept up between them, be not sufficient answer to that objec- Baron 

tion. As to the circumstance of the miscarriage, there she 

is extremely positive, and probably the curiosity of girls of 

her age in these matters exceeds that of grown persons. 

There was an observation made as to the word " abortion," 

but I think there can be no great weight laid upon that ; 

the term may have been learnt since. There has been also 

a witness produced to discredit Mrs. Heath as to the very 

substance of her testimony. What he has said must be fresh 

in your memory, but you will remember the seeming art made 

use of by him to show he was compelled to give his testimony. 

Besides, his testimony is not supported by circumstances, 

but is another instance of oath against oath. 

Gentlemen, the next witness I shall take notice of is Rolph 
(I do not speak regularly to them, intending only to take up 
the most material). He certainly delivered his testimony in 
a very clear manner. He gave an account of his coming to 
and living in the family, and of his continuance in it and 
manner of leaving it, and there is one circumstance that gives 
credit to Rolph, as he is the only one that can be said to 
receive credit from the witnesses on the other side. The 
plaintiff's witness, John Scott, has said that Rolph was butler 
before and continued after my lady's delivery, which agi-ees 
with Rolph's evidence but varies from all who have spoken 
to the birth, who say that Rolph was gone, that Meagher 
lived there at the time of Doyle's and Murphy's being there. 
Dennis Redmonds docs say there was such a servant as Rolph, 
but that he was gone before the delivery. But then you will 
consider what figure this Rolph made on his cross-examination. 
Such an absolute uncertainty as to everything but what he 
was brought to disclose, and his readiness to give evidence on 
one side of the question, necessarily induce suspicion, and you 
will consider his attempt to throw a reflection on the plaintiff, 
as if those concernefl for him would have tampered with Rolph. 
But the story carries an improbability in it that a man should 
send victuals before him, and come and offer to a stranger 
what was not in his power to give, and that in such an open 
manner. 

[Here Mr Baron Mounteney spoke to the Lord Chief Baron.] 

Gentlemen, my brother Mounteney mentions ono thing which 
I am mistaken in, if he is right. He says that when Mr. 
Mackerchcr made tlic offer of a lieutenancy to Rol{)h his own 
Ofjrnpany were only prewnt. I do ayijirehoml there was not 
only the compay of Mackercher but the com}»any that was 
with Rolph. Gentlemen, if I mistake the evidence on either 

Y 321 



The Annesley Case. 



Lord side, impute it to my memory, for I have no intention to 

misrejiresent, and should l)e extremely glad if anybody Avould 
set me riglit. When you come to look ujjon your notes you 
Avill see hew this fact stands. But there is one thing I 
would observe as to the testimony of Kolph, and that is that 
Mrs. Giffard and he differ. Kolph has said that the new 
road leading from the house of Duumaine to the cabin was 
made for the benefit of going to Mrs. Giffard 's and Colonel 
Palliser's, and that Mrs. Giffard always went that way. Mrs. 
Giffard says that she never went that way, but always by 
the bridge. These are slight circumstances, but, however, 
Avhere witnesses stand in such direct opposition to each other, 
they deserve some attention. 

Anthony Dyer, gentlemen, is another material evidence for 
the defendant. But you will consider how far his credit is 
affected by what I am going to mention. The witnesses on 
both sides have said that after the separation of Lord and 
Lady Altham the child, be it legitimate or illegitimate, came 
into the house of Dunmaine. William Elms fixes it to three 
weeks after, and another to a month ; but this man says 
that he was there at the separation, and three-quarters of a 
year after, and swears there was no child in the house during 
that time. As to the positive evidence on the part of the 
plaintiff, Doyle and Murphy, the observations on them as to 
their coming into the service have been made and are extremely 
strong. Murphy did say that Doyle came there first ; she 
afterwards changed and said she came there before Doyle. 
You will consider also the manner in which they gave their 
evidence. And in regard to Mr. Palliser, Mr. Lambert, 
and those people that spoke to the pregnancy on the part of 
the defendant, they have gone so far that if you believe them 
there could not have been a miscarriage. There is one thing 
I forgot to mention, to strengthen the evidence of Mrs. Cole, 
and weaken that of Mrs. Heath, which is, that Lambert said 
that Sutton, the surgeon, was sent for to Ross, and stayed at 
Dunmaine a fortnight. Now when you come to compare the 
times of his being sent for and the miscarriage, you will con- 
sider whether it does not tally pretty near with the time when 
Mrs. Cole gives an account of the miscarriage, and yet Mrs. 
Heath says he never did attend my lady. 

There is one general obsei-vation to be made on all the 
evidence, and that is, that there is a forwardness, an inclina- 
tion to go on to ser\^e their party, on both sides, and that 
they want that candidness which gives a credit to witnesses. 
I say not this on either side, but you will consider whether 
it is not an observation that nins through the whole. I 
shall not trouble you with respect to the surgeon. The 
322 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

objection to him arises from the improbability of his own Lord 

testimony. As to Christopher Brown, who was one of the '^^'®*'^*''°° 

servants attending at dinner at the chi'istening, supposing what 

he says could be credited, you will consider how that man was 

mistaken in the description of the house. And you will permit 

me to observe that there is a great difference between not 

recollecting circumstances and a witness swearing to those that 

are false. The not recollecting may consist with integrity, 

the swearing to a falsehood never can, nor can you give any 

credit to such a witness, because you cannot say that he is 

wrong as to this and right as to that part of his evidence. 

With regard to the several witnesses who say the child from 

first to last was not only reputed but called a bastard, and 

Joan Landy's child, and that the boy knew it, and sent his 

duty to her as his mother, you will consider how consistent 

that is with what William Elms and others have said, who 

would have it understood that my lord would not for £500 that 

the child should know his mother, and that my lord ordered 

them to set the dogs upon her if she came near the house, 

and yet those who speak of him at Kinnea and Carrickduff say 

that my lord has often cursed him for having too much of 

his mother's blood in him. How these different accounts can 

be reconciled you must consider. There is one witness more 

on this head that I must take notice of, and that is Elizabeth 

M'MuUen, and she would have it understood that out of the 

mouth of the boy himself, at the funeral of his father, upon 

being asked by her who was his mother, he said Joan Landy. 

Gentlemen, you will compare this with the testimony of Mr. 

Bush and Mr. Tighe. The boy, when he lived with Mr. 

Bush, persisted that he was my lord's own son, and the same 

at Mr. Tighe's. Now, if the boy had once received the 

notion of his being the lawful son of Lord Altham, you will 

observe the improbability there is of his saying to her, a 

stranger, I am the son of Joan Landy. I will carry this 

a little further, and that with regard to the letter she says was 

wrote by her giving an account of Lord Altham's death. If 

this circumstance be false, that letter must have been fictitious 

and of later date. 

I have now mentioned the evidence on both sides, and from 
what I observed to you it does appear that here is such a clash- 
ing of witnesses, such contrary evidence, that though some 
circumstances might be reconciled, yet others will remain 
irreconcilable; and therefore I must, and I think you gentle- 
men will, be oblige<l to consider the circumstances that will 
throw a probability or improbability upon the testimony you 
have heard. The strong circumRtanccR which induce proba- 
bility in favour of the plaintiff are those I have mentioned, of 

323 



The Anneslcy Case. 



Lofd s[iiriting him away, and attorwards attempting by an unjust 

{trosecution to take away his life, to which I have before spoke 
at large, and need not rejM?at. On the part of the defendant 
the circumstances are of a different kind, and those are such 
as relate to this family from the beginning of the transaction 
to the end, and arise from the quality and circumstances of the 
persons, which, as has been urgecl, must have rendered a 
fact of this kind too notorious ever to have been doubted, 
esj>ccially in this kingdom ; that it must have been known to 
tho relations of this family in England, whose estate and 
honours were to be enjoyed by that son; that my Lord Altham 
himself ought to have made it public ; and tliat it was the 
interest of Lady Altham that the Uuke of Buckingham, her 
father, should know that she was with child. Again, you 
will consider the improbability arising from the place where 
he was born — at Dunmaine, in a remote part of the country, 
attended by a country midwife, and the surgeon you have 
seen. Ladies, say they, of her rank would not submit to it, 
and are usually placed on such occasions where they can have 
the best assistance, and the consequence of a child to this 
family particularly required it. In the next place, you 
will consider whether there be not a further improbability aris- 
ing from the nurse; that a poor body should be employed is 
no wonder, but that an infamous poor body, rendered infamous, 
as was supposed, by my lord, and in that very place, should 
be taken by my lady to nurse her legitimate child is scarce 
to be accounted for. There is nothing said to reconcile this, 
but the testimony given by Laffan ; and she tells you that 
this was a secret not disclosed to my lady till after the 
separation. Indeed, if you believe this the improbability will 
decrease, but you will find it difficult to suppose my lady the 
only person in the family to whom this was a secret. The 
place where the child was nursed has been also urged, but 
the difficulty is not that a nobleman's child was nursed at a 
poor man's house, but whether that house was fit to receive a 
child intended to be preserved ; and therefore the probability 
or improbability in this instance will depend upon the credit 
you shall give to the different accounts of the cabin where this 
nui'se lived. It has been further said that the sponsors at 
the christening of this child ought to have been of high rank, 
and from among the relations of this noble family. Again, 
this child, after the separation, was removed from place to 
place, and we have not heard that Lady Altham, either by 
herself or friends, took any care or notice of him, except the 
single instance at Koss. Was it not Lady Altham's interest 
to have acquainted the Duke of Buckingham that she had a son 
by her lord ; that he had sent him away, and put this child 

324 



Lord Chief Baron's Summing-Up. 

into the care of his whore? And was it not probably if this Lord 
notice had been given that care would have been taken of this 
child by some of the family? The little care taken of his 
education by my lord has also been urged. In answer to 
which you have been reminded of the character and circum- 
Btances of Lord Altham. Again, my lord's parting with this 
child, or rather exposing him, in the manner you have heard 
cannot, as it is said, be accounted for, supposing him to be 
the real son of Lord Altham. But this is also attempted to 
be answered by the influence of Miss Gregory, and her repre- 
senting him as a bastard, in respect to my lord, though born 
in wedlock. But, say the counsel for the defendant, suppos- 
ing the plaintiff to be what they have endeavoured to prove, 
a bastard, the whole may be reconciled. But if the inhumanity 
of exposing this child raises the objection, you gentlemen 
■will consider whether a {person capable of treating his own 
bastard in that manner may not be supposed capable of being 
worked up by a bad woman to turn his legitimate child out of 
doors. The inhumanity seems equal in both cases, as both 
are entitled to the care and protection of the father. I had 
almost given the preference to the natural child, as the 
legitimate does not stand in equal want of it. Tlie mother, 
the family, may take care of laim, but the other is cast off. 
But, gentlemen, though this objection may be removed with 
respect to the father, it makes the objection very strong when 
applied to the mother. The sufferings of the child in this 
manner were what one would expect should have excited and 
calle<l for the mother's peculiar care ; that she was not ignorant 
of it you will gather from the testimony of Catherine O'Neill, 
and you will consider the manner in which the mother is sup- 
posed to treat that child — " I should be glad to see my son, 
but I know it would cost the servant that Ijrought him his 
bread." It must be a weak affection that could for that 
reason be prevailed on not to see the child. This lady lived 
two years after the death of her husband, and we do not find 
any evidence of her care for this son, which has been urged 
also to show that he was not her son. Again, it was her 
interest to take notice of this child. It has been mentioned, 
and not deniwl, that tlieie was an estate of £1200 a year that 
went away on the death of Ix>rd Altham, and would have gone 
to this son, if legitimate. It was insisted upon that I>;idy 
Altham might have Mpj)li(d for the guardiansliip of her son, 
and have had a goorl allowance made by the Lord Chancellor 
for the diKcharge of tliat trust, which she wanted. I must 
also observe the additional weight they gave to this olijwtion, 
from the tostiinfuiy that WcIkIi gave, of her declaring that her 
heart would break were it not that she had a promising young 
son who would be a supfiort to her in her old age. Alderman 

325 



The Anneslcy Case. 



Lord l^iiig, it whose house she resided fourteen months, a man of 

aron jut^gj-jty mi(_^ truth, whose cixjdit cannot be controverted, says 
he never liearil her mention her having a son, though the 
intimacy of dining at one table for that time must probably 
have afforded frequent op{X)i-tunities of doing so. And 
whether a woman, under the allliction of a sejiaration and her 
unhappy circumstances, could have concealed such a fact is 
worthy your attention. 

There was another matter urged as an improbability from 
the testimony of Colonel Wall. I shall state to you how that 
fact stands. Colonel Wall said he had taken an opinion for 
Loixl Altham as to the power he had over the Anglesea estate ; 
that, according to that opinion. Lord Altham was tenant in 
tail, and might have barred his issue, and by that means 
have had it in his power to raise more by the sale of his 
reversionary interest, supposing he was only tenant for life, 
expectant on the death of the then earl. But the same witness 
also said that he would not, upon the credit of this opinion, 
carry the title to maiket, and that, notwithstanding this 
opinion, he was very angry with his brother, the now de- 
fendant, for refusing to join with him in selling their rever- 
sions. So that Lord Altham's reversionary interest being 
certain, and his other depending on an undecided question in 
law, you will consider whether upon these views he was moi'© 
likely to have made public or concealed his having a son. 

Having gone through with what I proposed to say upon 
the evidence, I shall only, in general, take notice that it will 
be proper for you gentlemen, while you are considering this 
case, to take with you the characters of the persons actors in 
it, and thence to judge what was or was not to be expected 
from them. Again, if there are, as I suppose there will 
be, some of the plaintiff's witnesses to whom you will not give 
credit, you w^ll consider whether the plaintiff in justice ought 
to be affected thereby ; you will consider him as reduced by 
the defendant to the necessity of making use of such evidence 
as offered, and in such case bad witnesses may have obtruded 
themselves, or art may have been used to put them in his 
way, so that unless it appeared that the plaintiff made use of 
them, knowing them to be bad, they ought not to be placed to 
his account. You will also consider that, though you have 
only the defendant before you, yet the remainder-men, who 
do not derive under the defendant, are to be affected by your 
verdict, and ought not to be postponed, unless you are satis- 
fied that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Lord Altham ; 
therefore you must consider (taking the proofs, the proba- 
bility, and the several things together) whether the plaintiff 
be the lawful son or not. If he be, you must find for the 
plaintiff ; if not, for the defendant. 
326 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up . 

Grentlemen, I forgot to mention the evidence of my Lord Lcpd 
Mount Alexander, and of Mr. Medlicott, concerning Lord *^^^®^^*'*°" 
Altham's declarations as to his having a son. Lord Mount 
Alexander told you of an expression of Lord Altham's to one 
Mr. Crow, an expression not very easy to be understood — 
" My wife has got a son, which will make that rake my 
brother's nose swell," which has been applied to the son 
now in question. You v, ill consider whether it concludes 
necessarily to that, or whether Lord Altham might not have 
in his imagination some other child begot on the body of my 
lady. There was an intimation of a son by one Segrave, who 
might be then living. How far this rumour was in my lord's 
mind is hard to say, but if this was not in his thoughts the 
expression is extraordinary — " My wife has got a son." This 
might be said of such a son, but you will consider whether 
it was a manner of expression for a son of his own, born in 
his own house. As to Mr. Medlicott, the words sworn to by him 
were that my lord should say, " I have no child, nor know not 
that I ever shall. I do not care if the devil had the estate." 
If my lord looked upon the son by his lady to have been begot 
by another man, consider if the words import more than this 
— " I have no son, no son that I suppose to be my own ; I 
do not care if the devil had the estate." 

But taking each set of words as contended for by each side, 
all that can be said is that my lord has at different times 
varied his manner of speaking on this subject. Whether you 
can find out the motives inducing him to do so, or can draw 
any conclusion therefrom, must be left to your consideration. 
I shall think myself happy if anything collected by me can 
assist you in the discovery of truth. 

Mr. Baron Mountenet — Gentlemen of the jury, my Lord S^^^'Jg^gy 
Chief Baron hath summed up this evidence in so full, so 
judicious, and so masterly a manner that it would be a very 
improper task for me to attempt to go again with you over 
the evidence at large. 

I shall, therefore, confine myself to some of the more capital 
parts of the case, and although I am extremely sensible in 
how inaccurate and disjointed a manner I shall lay my thoughts 
before you, yet with the lio[)e of stiiking out even tlie smallest 
spark of light which may help to guide you through this 
dark affair, I shall endeavour to recollect a few remarks on 
those parts of tho evidence which strike my understanding 
in the most forcible manner. 

And, gentlemen, I shall take U[) the case where the evidence 
for the plaintiff and the observations of tho defendant's counsel 
closed, I mean the kidnapfiing of tho lessor of tho jilaintiff 

327 



The Annesley Case, 

Moun'teney ""'' *^^'"" P'^^secution for munlor carried on against him by 
the defendant. 

The hitter of these two facts 1 shall consider first. It is 
proved by John Giffard, tlie attorney employed to carry it on, 
and in the course of his evidence, gentlemen, several things 
occur which, though not relative to that prosecution, are yet 
extremely material for your consideration. 

In the first place, gentlemen, he relates to you a conversa- 
tion between the defendant and himself so long ago as the 
month of March, 1741, and the occasion upon which that 
conversation happened. He tells you that at that time it 
■was the common topic of discourse that Mr. Annesley was 
returned from the West Indies to assert his rights, and that 
the defendant ray Lord Anglesea was at that time embarrassed 
w ith a variety of lawsuits ; that my lord expressed great 
uneasiness upon both accounts, and thereupon told him that 
" he should be very glad to send to Mr. Annesley, and if he 
would allow him £2000 or £3000 a year he would surrender 
up to him his titles and estates, and go live in PVance, for he 
should be much happier than to be so tormented, and had 
rather his brother's son should have it than anybody else; 
for if Jemmy had the estate he should live easy in France, 
for it was his right, and he would surrender it to him ; that 
he did not value the title, he would go live in Fiance ; 
and that he might live the easier there would send for a 
French master to converse with him in that language." 

The counsel for the defendant, gentlemen, with great art 
and ingenuity endeavour to avoid the force of this evidence, 
and in the first place they represent this declaration of my 
lord Avith regard to a compromise and his going to France as 
a hasty, passionate expression, flowing from his uneasiness of 
mind, on account of the ill situation of his affairs and his 
resentment against the Annesleys. 

But, gentlemen, from Giffard's evidence this could not 
possibly be the case, for he tells you it was my lord's resolu- 
tion, that he continued in that resolution from the time of 
the first conversation, which was before the 10th of March, 
1741, to May, 1742; that in pursuance of that resolution he 
actually did (as he had declared he would) send for a person, 
one Stephen Hayes, and had him in the house to convei-se 
with him in French ; and that he, the witness, was present 
forty times. 

The next thing, gentlemen, suggested by the defendant's 
counsel was that my Lord Anglesea (in his then uneasy 
situation, and so angry with the Annesleys, as Giffard said he 
was) might possibly be induced to wish for such an accom- 
modation as was mentioned with the lessor of the plaintiff, 
328 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

not through a consciousness of his being the legitimate son ^*''°° 
of the late Lord Altham, but with a view of gratifying his 
resentment by disappointing the Annesleys, and at the same 
time of promoting his own interest by securing to himself a 
larger share of the estate than would otherwise remain to 
him. 

But, gentlemen, when you consider the following part of 
Gififard's evidence you will find that neither can this inter- 
pretation hold, loecause if this had been the scheme my lord 
must certainly have persevered in it. Whereas, upon the 
imhappy accident of Mr. Annesley's killing a man, this sup- 
posed scheme is abandoned and another (much more beneficial, 
as Giflfard told you, for the defendant, and absolutely destruc- 
tive of the other) is immediately embraced, which was to 
cany on a prosecution against Mr. Annesley for that fact, 
and if possible to get him hanged. 

Consider now, gentlemen, the evidence concerning that 
prosecution, and the circumstances attending it. 

The first of May is tlie day on which the murder is in the 
indictment laid to be committed. On the second Lord Angle- 
sea retains Giffard to go down to Staines to collect evidence 
and to carry on the prosecution. On the fourth, the coroner's 
inquest finds it wilful murder. Before Giffard returns from 
Staines my lord goes down to Hounslow to meet him in order 
to learn how things went on, and declares to him that he did 
not care if it cost him £10,000 if he could get Mr. Annesley 
hanged. 

Quo animo are these things said and done by the defendant? 
Ufion what grounds was it that the noble lord thus officiously 
interfK)sed upon this occasion? Tliat he showed so much 
impatience to learn how things went on? That he actually 
expended such large sums of money as Giffard expressly 
tells you he did (I think no less than £800), and declared 
himself ready to expend much larger in carrying on this 
prosecution? Was it for the sake of justice? If so. why all 
those piecautions, that contrivance, which you were told of, 
that my lord might not ajifiear to be concerned in it? If 
not for the sake of justice then, gentlemen, you are to 
consider uf)on what other princijile and motives this extra- 
ordinary conduct can Ihj accounted for. And this will be 
the less difficult for you to do when you shall coinpaic those 
facts and circumstances with the reason given by my lord 
ff)r that rcmarkal)le <leclaration of liis as to the £10,000, 
which Giffard swears positively my lord mentioned to him, 
viz., ho did not care if it Cdst him £10,000 if he coidd get 
him hanged, " for then he shouhl Iw easy in his titles and 
estates." 

329 



The Annesley Case. 



Baron There is another part of Giffard's evidence which, as it 

strikes mo strongly, I shall mention for your consideration, 
and that is that my lord told him (fifty times, I think he said, 
between the 7th of December, 17-11, and the 14th of July, 
1742, which was the day of the trial) that this pretender, aa 
he called him, was transported for stealing a silver spoon. 

You will consider, gentlemen, what weight this circumstance 
may have when coupled with the complaints made against 
him by Miss Gregory of thieving with what the witnesses, 
who prove the several attempts upon the boy, and at last 
the actual transportation of him, have told you of my lord's 
rei>eatedly calling him a thieving son of a whore ; and with 
the particular charge which one of them swears my lord 
made against him of having stolen from him a silver spoon. 

I have endeavoured to state to you, gentlemen, the main 
substance of Giflfard's evidence. In order to avoid the force 
of it, the counsel for the defendant have strongly insisted upon 
two objections to his credit. 

The first is, that understanding, as he owns he did, that 
my Lord Anglesea by his declaration as to the £10,000 meant 
that he intended to destroy Mr. Annesley if he could, and 
that he would expend that sum in means to have him hanged, 
he did not decline being further engaged, but still continued 
to carry on the prosecution. 

And indeed, gentlemen, it does to me carry with it an 
imputation upon Giffard, that he did not immediately fling 
up any concern in this or any other business of my lord's, 
and publish this declaration to all mankind. But, gentle- 
men, you will consider, on the other hand, what Giffard hath 
said in excuse of himself. He tells you, " If there was any 
dirty work he had no hand in it." He distinguisheth between 
a bad purpose and the carrying on a legal prosecution, and 
he tells you "that the coroner's inquest having found the 
fact wilful murder, he thought that a sufficient foundation 
for him to proceed." 

The other objection to his credit is, that being an attorney 
retained by Lord Anglesea to carry on this prosecution (in 
any suit between Mr. Annesley and my lord, he swears posi- 
tively, he never was nor ever expected to be retained), he 
comes here voluntarily to disclose the secrets of his client. 

Now, gentlemen, as to the prosecution, you will observe 
that the original discovery of my lord's being concerned in 
it was not voluntarily made by the witness, for he tells 
you that he found himself under the necessity of suing my 
lord for a large sum of money which remained due to him 
upon his bill of costs, and that upon his so doing my lord 
filed a bill against him in the Court of Exchequer in England, 

330 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

in his answer and schedule to which he was obliged to set S**"®^ 
forth the particular items of his bill of costs ; that by this 
means (as he supposeth) Mr. Mackercher got knowledge of it, 
and thereupon applied to him to give his testimony in this 
cause. 

As to the conversation between my lord and him, I have 
already declared my sense so fully, when the point was debated, 
whether evidence of it should be admitted or not, that I shall 
trouble you with a very few words only upon it now. 

Gentlemen, I can by no means allow it to be any objection 
to the credit of the witness that he voluntarily discloseth that 
which the Court hath unanimously determined he was com- 
pellable to disclose. And I must say this further, that in my 
apprehension Giffard could not have justified himself either 
to Gk>d or man if he had not disclosed it, especially as it 
waa a declaration wantonly made to him, not under the seal 
of friendship, nor of that confidence which is necessaiy between 
client and attorney. 

GJentlemen, you are the judges, and you will carefully 
consider what degree of credit to give to this and every other 
witness who hath been produced upon this occasion ; and God 
forbid that any part of the evidence, any argument, or any 
observation should have more or less weight with you than 
it will bear. 

If you believe the evidence of Giffard you will then consider 
that you have an express acknowledgment of right in the 
lessor of the plaintiff from the mouth of the defendant ; that, 
indef)endently of this, you have declarations and facts which 
strongly im{X)i-t a consciousness of that right. And, lastly, 
you will consider what strength this evidence of Giffard adds 
(if any strength is wanting) to the evidence of the kidnapping 
in 1728. 

That fact, gentlemen, stands positively and fully proved by 
a multitude of witnesses neither discreditetl nor, as it was 
promised by the defendant's counsel, contradicted. And, 
indeed, if that fact was not so clearly proved, tho evidence of 
Mr. Silcross Ash is, in my apprehension, sufficient to silence 
the least doubt about it. 

You will then consider, gentlemen, if you believe that 
evidence, whether there docs not from thence arise the most 
violent presumption of the defendant's knowledge of title in 
the lessor of tho plaintiff. 

It is represented to you by tho defence that it was notorious 
to everybody converwant with that noble family that La<ly 
Altham never had a son in Ireland, that she never miscarried, 
that she never was with child. On the otiicr hand, that it 
was equally notorious that my lord had a son by Joan Landy, 

33« 



The Annesley Case. 

Baron and that the lessor of the plaintiff was that son. Now if 

tJiis was tlie case, tor heaven s sake, gentlemen, what appre- 
hensions could the defendant possibly be under from a boy 
who, if he had set up any claim to the title and estate, 
must inevitably have been detected as a most notorious 
impostoi? 

But if, on the other hand, this boy was the legitimate 
son of Lord Althani (and whether he was or not must certainly 
lie in tlie knowledge of the defendant) then, gentlemen, you 
will consider whether this kidnapping and this prosecution 
will not be easily and naturally accounted for, and whether 
any other adequate cause than a knowledge of his being so 
can, with any degree of probability, be assigned for this 
extraordinary, this iniquitous behaviour of the defen3ant. 

But, gentlemen, the counsel for the defendant have told 
you that the mateiial fact in this case is the birth, and unless 
that is incontestably proved that the plaintiff cannot possibly 
avail himself of any presumptions (an ingenious gentleman 
chose generally to call them suspicions) which arise in this 
case. 

Gentlemen, I differ entirely from them upon that head. If 
that which, to l>e sure, is the material fact, were proved to 
you incontestably, the plaintiff would then have no occasion 
for presumptions. Presumptions then only are, or can be, 
of use when the fact in dispute is not, nor can be, proved 
incontestably. 

Gentlemen, as this assertion hath been so strongly insisted 
on, and hath had so much stress laid upon it by every one 
of the learned counsel, let me detain you a little to make a 
few observations ujwn the subject of presumptions. 

Presumptions, gentlemen, have at all times and in all laws 
which I have ever heard of, particularly in our own, been 
allowed to have great weight in doubtful cases. Some are of 
so high a nature that the law will not admit of any proof to 
the contrary, and these are called presumptions jttris et de 
jure. Again, there are presumptions of law, as likewise 
what the writers upon this subject call presumptions of man 
(such as are collected occasionally by man's understanding 
from given facts), which, though they fall short of that 
strength and conclusive force which the others have, are 
yet to stand in the place of full proof till the contrary is 
proved. 

" Violenta presumptio is many times plena probatio," are 
the express words of my Lord Coke, and the case which that 
great oracle of the law puts upon it is this — "A man is run 
through the body with a sword in a house, whereof he 
instantly died. A man is seen to come out of that house 
332 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

with a bloody sword, and no other man was at that time in Baron 
the house." Upon these circumstances, gentlemen, a violent Mounteney 
presumption arises, and shall stand for full proof, unless the 
contrary can be proved, that that man was the murderer. 

Now, gentlemen, you will observe that in the case put 
(and many others of a like or even inferior kind may be put 
in which great numbers of the king's subjects suffer capitally) 
the jury from circumstances infer a criminal fact committed 
by the person accused. A fortiori it should seem reasonable 
from a criminal fact proved to infer the circumstances and 
motives leading to that fact. 

Mr. Serjeant Marshall very properly mentioned to you the 
case of the spoliation of a deed. 

In that case, gentlemen, it is an established maxim "that 
all things are to be presumed in disfavour of the spoliator." 
And you will consider whether a parity of reason will not 
operate strongly in the present case. Mr. Serjeant's reason- 
ing on this head was entirely agreeable to what I remember 
to have heard laid down by one of the greatest men who ever 
sat in a Court of judicature, viz., that circumstances were in 
many cases of greater force and more to be depended upon 
than the testimony of living witnesses. 

Witnesses, gentlemen, may either be mistaken themselves 
or wickedly intend to deceive others. God knows, we have 
seen too much of this in the present cause on both sides ! 
But circumstances, gentlemen, and presumptions, naturally 
and necessarily arising out of a given fact, cannot lie. And, 
gentlemen, it must be left to your consideration whether in 
this case the presumptions arising from the kidnapping and 
the prosecution for murder do not speak stronger than a 
thousand witnesses. 

The next observation, gentlemen, which naturally ariseth 
from the kidnapping is that the lessor of the plaintiff is 
thereby thrown fifteen years back in his evidence. If his 
case had come under your consideration, or that of any other 
jury, soon after the death of the late Lord Altham, it would 
not have been attended with the difficulties it now is, but 
must have received a very easy and clear determination. 
Mrs. Shiells, who is swoni to have brought him into the 
world ; the clergyman, who is sworn to have christened him ; 
the persons who are sworn to have l)oon sponsors, with many 
other material witnesses, were probably all, or most of them, 
then living, an<l might have borne their testimony. The 
account which you now have of them is that they are all 
dead. 

In the next place, gentlemen, you are to consider the dangers 
to which this gentleman lies open in asserting his supposed 

333 



The Annesley Case. 



Mo'*nt«nev ^'^S^^' ^^ ^^^ ""^' ^^^liJ. i'lom witiit'ssee officiously obtruding 
themselves ; and on the other, from witnesses who may have 
been industriously obtruded upon him. And if you believe 
that these difficulties have been occasioned by the wicked act 
of the defendant you are then to consider whether a much 
slighter evidence than might otherwise have been required 
will not satisfy you, in a case thus circumstanced, of the 
truth and justice of his claim. 

But, gentlemen, the counsel for the defendant further tell 
you " that altliough you might possibly be induced to think 
the defendant capable of committing a wicked act yet that 
ought not to influence your judgment as to the determination 
of his property." 

And, gentlemen, I must agree that a wicked act, nay, 
repeated wicked acts, in general ought not to influence your 
judgment. But if the defendant hath committed a most 
wicked act against the person who then asserted himself to 
be the son of Lord and Lady Altham, and who is now con- 
testing with him his title and estate ; if he hath done another 
very estraxjrdinary, though legal, act against him in a clandes- 
tine manner and coupled with a declaration highly criminal, 
this in my opinion may and ought to have great weight with 
you upon this occasion. 

Another thing, gentlemen, insisted upon by the defendant's 
counsel was that if the case be doubtful the present possession 
ought to turn the scale in favour of tlie defendant. 

Now, here I must again diflfer from the learned gentlemen. 
If indeed upon the whole evidence the case stands doubtful, 
they say well. But if upon the direct positive evidence the 
case is balanced, then, gentlemen, the kidnapping and the 
prosecution will, in my apprehension, turn the scale in favour 
of the plaintiff. For a violent presumption is to stand for 
truth till the contrary is proved. Now, if upon the positive 
testimony on both sides the mind remains in equilihrio, then, 
gentlemen, the contrary is not proved, and consequently the 
presumption stands. 

I canot help saying that I think it pretty extraordinaiy 
in this case that so many objections should be raised, and 
eo much stress laid upon them, against your being influenced 
in your judgment by presumptions, by suspicions, by pro- 
babilities. 

Gentlemen, their whole defence is built upon probability 
and improbability. 

They first tell you you are to judge not upon probabilities 
but upon positive proof of the material facts; and to that 
positive proof, when given, they tell you you ought to give 
no credit, for it is improbable. 

334 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

There was one objection of this sort which I forgot to Baron 
mention, and that was as to the proof of the kidnapping. 
They told you, gentlemen, that although the defendant could 
be supposed wicked enough to commit such a fact, yet it 
was inconceivable that he should be so weak as to do it at 
noonday, that he should carry the boy through a public 
market, nay, by the very stall of Purcell, who had before 
protected him (by the by, gentlemen, you will remember 
that the boy was charged with felony, and carried ofif by 
known constables); and the same objection, I think, was before 
made to Giffard's testimony, that it was utterly incredible 
that any man living should be so weak as to put himself 
into the power of any other man by making such declarations 
as Giffard swore my lord made to him. 

I must own, gentlemen, that this objection does not to 
my understanding carry any great weight with it. 

Wickedness and weakness generally go hand in hand 
together, and upon the repeated observation of their doing so 
is founded that well-known saying — 

Quos Deus vult perdere, 2>i'ius dementat. 

The next part of the case which I shall speak to is the 
evidence of Mrs. Heath as it stands opposed to that of Mrs. 
Cole, and the evidence of Rolph opposed to that of Mr. 
Colclough, Turner, and Higginson. 

It was my desire that Mrs. Cole and Mrs. Heath might be 
confronted, because I did then, and do still think, that this 
case may receive great light and may be greatly narrowed 
for your determination by a careful consideration of Cole's 
evidence, as it stands in direct contradiction to the testimony 
of Heath, whom I look upon as a capital witness, and one of 
the main pillars of the defence. 

In other parts of the case, gentlemen, you meet with many 
variations between the witnesses as to perio<l8 of time and 
other minute circumstances, which will not be of much con- 
sequence in the cause or tend to impeach the credit of those 
witnesses on the one side or the other. But when once you 
come to a fact in whicli two positive witnesses flatly contradict 
each other — a fact, the truth or falsehood of which the wit- 
nesses on each side must with as much certainty and exactness 
know at the time *<he gives her testimony as kIic did at the 
time that fact is said to have happened, let it be ever eo 
long ago — so that one of them is, to demonstration, perjuretl, 
then, gentlemen, it Ix^omes exceedingly material for you to 
consider which of two sucli witnesses you will give credit to, 
and your determination of that y>oint may go a great way 
towards enabling you to form a judgment upon the whole case. 

335 



The Annesley Case. 

Baron Tho tirst matei ial circumstance wliicli occurs to nie, in which 

Mountoney Q^\^, ^jjjj IK^ath ditl'cr, is as to the going or not going awuy 

of Lord and Lady Althain from Captain Briscoe's (at whose 

house the reconciliation was brought about) to my loitl's 

lodgings at Vice's in Essex Street. 

Mrs. Heath swears positively that during their stay in Dublin 
they never lodged one single night out of the house of Captain 
Briscoe. Mrs. Cole (sui)ported by her sister, Mrs. Briscoe, 
by Alice Bates, a servant in her father's family, and by 
Catharine MacCormick, Vice's servant) swears as positively that, 
after staying four or live days at her father's, they went to 
lodgings in Essex Street (as to the person's house she is not 
positive, but she takes it to be Vice's), and there continued 
a considerable time — I think about two months — before they 
left Dublin and went to Dunmaine. And, gentlemen, you 
will remember that Mrs. Cole, when she was a second time 
produced, gave you a particular reason why she could 
be so positive as to that fact, which was, "that, 
notwithstanding the i-econciliation between my lord and lady, 
her father still continued uneasy about the matter, and was 
very desirous and pressing that they would leave his house 
and go to other lodgings, because he thought it would have a 
better air of their being well together," which she explained 
afterwards by saying that it would become more public and 
notorious to mankind that my lord and lady were, in fact, 
reconciled. 

This circumstance, as soon as it was mentioned, I thought 
struck some light into this affair — it did to me explain clearly 
two other odd circumstances which I shall mention to you 
presently. 

The next fact, concerning which Mrs. Cole and Mrs Heath 
stand in direct opposition, is the supposed miscarriage at 
Dunmaine. Mrs. Cole swears positively that about the middle 
of the night, after the accident of Lord Altham's breaking the 
saucers, Mrs. Heath came into the bedchamber of her mother, 
Mrs. Briscoe, with whom she lay, alarmed her with an account 
of my lady's being extremely ill, and begged that she would 
immediately rise and go to her, which her mother accordingly 
did ; that the next morning she (the witness) was in my lady's 
bedchamber, where were present her mother, Mrs. Heath, and 
several of the servants ; that her mother there told her that 
my lady had miscarried, and showed her the abortion in the 
basin. 

Mrs. Heath, on the contrary, swears as positively that she 
did not, either upon that or any other night, call up Mrs. 
Briscoe ; that she does not remember that Mrs. Briscoe or 
her daughter was in my lady's room the next morning; and 
she swears positively that my lady did not then miscarry, nay, 
that she was not, either then or at any other time, with child. 
336 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

It was insisted on strongly by the defendant's counsel that Baron 
this evidence of Cole was attended with great improbability ; Mounteney 
that it was incredibly strange that a mother should show an 
abortion to her female child of such tender years. And, 
indeed, gentlemen, I think that fact does, prima facie, appear 
to be extremely odd, and to carry with it a strong air of 
improbability. 

There was another fact proved in the very outset of the 
cause, which (though it had not the same remark made upon 
it by the counsel) struck me in a very odd light, and that was, 
that upon the reconciliation of Lord and Lady Altham, at 
Captain Briscoe's, Mrs. Dorothy Briscoe, then not above ten, 
and her sister, Mrs. Cole, not then above twelve years of age, 
were, with the rest of the family called into the room to see my 
lord and lady in bed together. 

But, gentlemen, you will consider whether the reason which 
Mrs. Cole tells you her father had for pressing Lord and 
Lady Altham to leave his house and lodge elsewhere in Dublin, 
viz., that their reconciliation might become more notorious to 
mankind, does not fully explain, and strongly corroborate the 
proof of, those two odd and otherwise unaccountable facts. 

Gentlemen, you will consider further whether from these 
three circumstances connected and compared together there 
does not arise a strong probability that Captain Briscoe (who, 
I think, appears to have been the person employed by the 
Duke of Buckingham to bring about the reconciliation) had 
some apprehensions, that although the reconciliation was 
effected, and although, in consequence of it, Lady Altham 
should have issue by my lord, yet that in some future time, 
and for some reasons or other, Lord Altham (whose character 
and conduct appear pretty extraordinary upon the evidence in 
this cause) might be induced to bastardise that issue. 

And, gentlemen, you will consider further whether such an 
apprehension in Briscoe, as I have supposed, would have been 
unnatural or ill-founded when you have compared these cir- 
cumstances (which, as I have mentioned, seem to render it 
probable that he had such an apjirchension) with the evidence 
of Palliser, the younger. He relates to you a very extra- 
ordinary conversation which passed between my lord and him, 
about five days before the separation, as they were returning 
from Bourkstown to Dunm;iino. He tells you that my loi-d 
called to him in a familiar manner, and said, " Tom, I will 
tell you a secret. As 1 have no son by my wife, nor ever 
expect to have any, and as my lyird Anglcsea is very angry 
with me for keeping this woman I am determined to yiut her 
away, not to disoblige my I^ord Anglesea." The same witness 
had before sworn positively that ho never had — that he never 
attempted to have — that he believes in his conscience that my 

^' 337 



The Anncsley Case. 



Baron lord did not suspoct ho Lad — any criminal commerce with 
Mounteney L.|jy Altham ; and that my lord only made use of him as a 
colour and pretence lor putting away his lady. 

Now, gentlemen, you will observe that upon this testimony, 
even of the defendant's witness (who, indeed, is a very material 
witness for the defendant in some other parts of his evidence, 
if you give credit to him), Lord Altham was a man capable of 
putting away his lawful wife, to whom he had lately been 
reconciled — upon a mere pretence — and for no other real cause 
than that he might not disoblige Lord Anglesea. If he were 
so, you will then consider whether it be at all an unnatural 
and strained supposition that he was capable of abandoning 
and bastardising his lawful son in oi-der to oblige some other 
person or persons. 

This supposition, gentlemen, will, I think, appear still less 
unnatural when you recollect how Miss Gregory's behaviour 
to the boy stands upon the testimony of another witness for 
the defendant^ — I mean Herd (who, in his account of the boy's 
treatment by my lord before they came to Dublin, differs 
totally, as my Lord Chief Baron hath already observed, from 
all the gentlemen, of that part of the country who have been 
produced before you). 

Herd tells you that when my lord lived in Frapper's Lane 
great complaints were made to my lord against the child by 
Miss Gregory of his thieving — that he cannot tell whether the 
boy was really gudty or not, but that he confessed himself 
so — and that upon this my lord (whom the witness had never 
once seen strike the child upon any occasion in the country) 
corrected him more severely than ever he had seen any child 
corrected in his life. 

T\Tien the witness was asked by my Lord Chief Baron what 
those things were, with the thieving of which this boy (who 
is admitted on all hands to be the son of my lord, though 
his legitimacy is disputed) was charged by this lady, and for 
which he was so cruelly corrected by his father, he tells you 
they were " a jockey belt and a pair of pigeons." 

These are circumstances which, I must own, strike my under- 
standing strongly. You, gentlemen, are the judges, and you 
will well consider what weight they carry when connected 
with the rest of the evidence, and what light may be collected 
from them to guide your judgments on this occasion. 

I forgot to mention to you one thing which I think is very 
remarkable upon Heath's evidence, and that is, that she 
accompanies some of the plaintiff's witnesses in all the pi-e- 
paratory steps, and separates from them only when they come 
to the critical and material facts themselves. 

She recollects distinctly, with MacCormick, Vice's servant, 
"That my lord came home late one night disordered with 

338 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

liquor ; that he made a great noise with the chair ; that he Bapon 
quarrelled with her ; that he jumped out of bed from my lady, ^^o^nteney 
and ran towards the window ; that he called for Mrs. Lucas, 
the midwife; swore he would send for her to see if my lady 
was with child, and with another oath declared that if she was 
not with child he would turn her away." All these circum- 
stances she recollects minutely, and exactly agrees in them 
with the other witness ; but as to my lady's screaming upon 
this occasion there she separates. She says my lady would 
have died first. As to her miscarrying, or to any discourse 
in the family the next day that she had miscarried, this she 
positively denies. 

With regard to the miscarriage at Dimmaine, she agrees 
with Cole in the fact of my lord breaking the saucers, that 
those saucers had ugly or indecent figm'es on them, and that 
my lord had forbade their being brought to table. But that 
my lady was the least disordered upon this occasion she denies ; 
that she called up Mrs. Briscoe ; that my lady miscarried ; 
that she kept her chamber for several days, or even one day 
after. All this she positively denies, in direct contradiction 
to what has been sworn by Cole. And here, gentlemen, it 
will be extremely material for you to recollect that, pretty 
exact to the time at which Cole swears this miscarriage hap- 
pened, and my lady kept her chamber at least five days, it 
appears from the evidence of the defendant's witness (Mr. 
Aaron Lambert) that Sutton, the surgeon, whom my lord 
brought over with him from England, but had turned out of 
his house on account of some misljehaviour which ho had been 
guilty of in the family, was twice sent for to Dunmaine ; that he 
twice refused to go, being piqued at his having been turned 
out of the family ; that being sent for a third time, and my 
lord's chariot coming for him, he went, and continued attend- 
ing my lady at Dunmaine, to the best of the witness's 
remembrance, for a fortnight. This evidence was produced 
in order to discredit Brooks, the piece of a surgeon (as he 
called himself), produced on the part of the plaintiff, who, in 
my opinion, sufficiently discredited himself. You will con- 
sider, gentlemen, whether it does not go strongly in support 
of the testimony of Mrs. Cole in contradiction and discredit 
of Heath, with regard to whom an observation was made by 
the defendant's counsel, which I was exceedingly surprised to 
hear from that side of the table. They took notice of tho 
fK'Culiar excellency of our law, especially with regard to trials 
by jury, on which occasions the witnesses are examined viva 
voce ; that from confronting witnesses who contiadict each 
other, and carefully observing tlieir af)pearance and the manner 
in which thoy give their testimony, some light is to be 

339 



The Annesley Case. 



Baron collected, and the Court and jury may, in some measure, be 

oun eney ^Q^bled to form a judgment upon a doubtful case. 

The observation, gentlemen, is undoubtedly just, but what I 
little expected to have heard from that quai*ter. For, gentle- 
men, when you recollect and compare together the outrageous 
behaviom" and vociferous asseverations of Heath, with the calm, 
sedate, and modest demeanour of Cole, you will consider 
whether all the weight which can be laid upon an observation 
of that sort, does not lie entirely on the other side. 

Another point which hath been strongly, and, indeed, very 
properly, insisted upon by the defendant's counsel is this : 
They say it is extremely improbable, if this person were 
really the son of Lady Altham, that my lady, who is proved 
to have lived two years after the death of her lord, should 
make no inquiry about him. 

But, gentlemen, if you will compare the time of Lord 
Altham's death with the time of kidnapping the boy you will 
find, I think, that there is very little, if any, weight in this 
observation. 

Lord Altham died in November, 1727. The letter which 
Mrs. MacMullen swears she sent to Mrs. Heath, notifying my 
lord's death (and which Heath swears she communicated to 
my lady), bears date the 18th of that month. That letter 
must be some days at least going to England. On the 26th 
of the March following the boy appears from the " Tholsel " 
book to l>e indentured to Thomas Hendry by the name of 
James Hennesley, and on the 30th of April, the next month, 
it appears from Stevenson's book that he passed over the bar 
of Dublin ; so that taking that to be the truth (which, I 
think, is liable to strong objections of improbability, that 
MacMullen sent that letter), there will be very little more 
than five months between Lord Altham's death and the trans- 
portation of the boy. 

When Alice Bates appears and gives you an account of her 
joking with Lady Altham about her being with child, you 
are told by the defendant's counsel that this is highly improb- 
able, that Lady Altham was a very haughty woman, that it 
is incredible she should condescend to such familiarity with 
a person so much her inferior. 

Will it not appear to you equally improbable at least that 
this haughty lady should condescend to receive visits once 
a week, as Mrs. Mac^Mullen tells you she did, from her — the 
daughter of an ale-house keeper? 

It must be allowed that my lady's living with Alderman 
King for thirteen or fourteen months, conversing with him 
about her family affairs, and yet never mentioning to him her 
son, does, prima facie, carry with it a great improbability 
of her having at that time a lawful son. 
340 



Baron Mounteney's Summing-Up. 

But considering that my lord had put her away upon a Baron 
suspicion (either real or pretended) of her vii'tue, and had ' °""^®"®y 
aspersed her character, it might not be so prudent, nor perhaps 
so probable, that she would discourse with him or any other 
person upon the subject of child-bearing. 

However, allowing this to be improbable, will it not be 
equally improbable that the care of communicating so material 
intelligence as the death of Lord Altham should be entrusted, 
not to this Alderman King or any other person of some 
tolerable figm-e in this town, but to such a woman as 
MacMullen? 

These, gentlemen, are circumstances which, in my appre- 
hension, weigh strongly against the credit of MacMullen' s 
evidence. But taking that evidence to be true, you will 
consider whether the small distance of time between Lord 
Altham's death and the transportation does not greatly lessen 
the force of this argument, which has been so strongly insisted 
upon by the defendant's counsel, especially if you add to it 
the circumstances both of health and fortune in which Lady 
Altham appears to have been at this time. 

And here, gentlemen, will come in very materially for 
your consideration the evidence of Mrs. Deborah Annesley, 
a near relation of this noble family. 

She, who had before told you that her brother frequently 
visited my lord at Kinnea — that whenever he returned from 
thence, and whenever my lord visited at their house, it was their 
common practice to drink the health of my lord's son; that they 
all considered that boy as my lord's lawful son, and the future 
Earl of Anglesea (so that it is not fact, as you have been 
told, that none of the relations of the family ever heard of 
Lady Altham's having a son) ; this lady, I say, tells you 
that upon the death of Lord Altham she and her sister made 
frequent inquiries after this boy ; that for some time they 
could learn no account of him, and at last they concluded 
that he was dead. Now, if it became a general reputation 
that he was so, then, gentlemen, though Lady Altham like- 
wise might have made frequent inquiries after this boy {non 
constat upon the evidence whether she did or not, and she 
might have made several, not at this day capable of proof), 
and miglit receive an account, and give credit to it, that ho 
was dead ; and tliis might put a stop to any further inquiry, 
consistently with Lady Altham's knowledge of this lx)y*8 
being her legitimate son. 

These parts of the case, indepen<lcnt of tlie other, which 
have all i>een fully lai<l before you by my Lord Chief Baron, 
seem to me to have great weight in them. 

You, gentlemen, will consider what Rtress you will Iny ujwn 

341 



The Annesley Case. 



Baron the observations I have thrown out to you, and what light 

Mounienry ^^^.^^ y^ colkcted from tliem. 

There were several otlier things, gentlemen, which I designed 
to have mentioned to you, but the fatigue which we have all 
undergone hath been so very great, and the time I have had 
for recollection so very short, that my thoughts are too much 
dissipated to proceed, and indeed I have already trespassed 
too much upon your patience, considering the great attention 
which you have all along given and the careful notes you 
have taken of the evidence. I shall, therefore, now conclude 
with that which I at first set out, the kidnapping and 
the prosecution. If the case be doubtful upon the other 
parts of the evidence (whether it be or not you are the 
proper judges), I must then leave it to your consideration 
whether the evidence of these two extraordinary facts may 
not be sufficient to determine you what verdict to give upon 
this occasion. 

Baron Mr. Baron Dawso?^ — Gentlemen of the jury, my Lord Chief 
awson gg^j-Qj^ jjjj(j jjjy. brother Mounteney have summed up the 
evidence, and observed upon it in so judicious and clear a 
manner as makes any farther observations from me unneces- 
saiy. I shall therefore only require your patience for a few 
minutes to .show you how I would consider this case if I was 
upon the jury, and my reasons for so doing. There are such 
contradictions on both sides of the question that it would 
not be hard to show that several witnesses on each side are not 
entirely to be credited. Several of the witnesses on each side 
not only contradict the witnesses on the other side, but also, 
in some instances, themselves, and therefore, independent 
of other things proper to be considered, one could not tell 
where to settle. If I was upon the jury, and to determine 
this question, I should lay before me and consider the story 
as told on each side. I should consider how far the story, 
on one hand, independent of the witnesses, exceeded the other 
in point of probability. If on either hand the story told 
appeared extremely improbable, I should then require from 
that side the strongest proof imaginable, and that because 
probability ought to weigh except it be contradicted by testi- 
mony not to be doubted of ; and, therefore, if on either side 
the story should be extremely improbable, and probable on 
the other side, I should give my opinion on the side of 
probability. How far anything of this kind appears in this 
case will come under your consideration. 

This is the longest trial ever known at the bar. This is 
the fifteenth day since the trial began. Trials at bar are 
usually determined in one day, and the policy of the law 
342 



Baron Dawson's Summing-Up. 

hath taken care that no person should speak to the jury Baron 
after any evidence given in Court. There is no occasion, I 
am persuaded, gentlemen, to remind you that anything heard 
out of Court is not to govern you. You are to be governed 
by nothing but the evidence laid before you. 

In the fii'st place, the first stage is the time of the birth. 
You will take into your consideration the number of witnesses 
and their stations that swear to that birth, and also the 
niunber and station of the witnesses that swear in direct 
contradiction to them. If you cannot determine that question 
by comparing them together, you will then have recourse to 
the other part of the testimony, which is the reputation of 
the country and the persons that visited constantly at that 
house. You will consider the probability or improbability 
that a fact of this kind could have happened and the people 
visiting not know of it. This could hardly be in a family 
of less consequence than my Lord Altham's, but when you 
consider this family and the estate that was to fall to it, you 
will consider if there could be a birth and persons visiting 
the family not knowing of it. There have been proofs, on 
the one hand, laid before you of my lady's being with child, 
and, on the other hand, of her not being with child; either 
of these parties may swear false. But then you must take 
into your consideration if they that swear she had a child 
swear truth,, whether it could be possible that that could 
be kept a secret. There was not any interest or reason that 
it should be kept a secret. If it was not industriously kept 
secret, how comes it that all those persons that visited there 
should never have heard of the child? 

To go to positive testimony, Lafifan swears positively the 
child was presented to several gentlemen and ladies, and 
often to Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Lambert swears positively the 
child never was shown to her. Which is to be credited? 
There are several circumstances you will take into your con- 
sideration concerning the prol)ability or improbability of the 
birth of this child, whether the preparations for my lady's 
lying-in weie suitable to her rank Whether Dunmaino, a 
email village, distant from any assistance necessary on such 
an <K;casion, was a proper place? Whether my Lady Altham 
would be easily brought to lie-in in the country, especially 
of lier first child? lliese are considerations worthy of your 
attention. There have been many gentlemen who gave 
evidence to there not having been a child ; they swear not 
only that they never saw, but that they never heard of a 
child. I won't enter critically into every particular [)eriod 
of time sworn to by tJiem, but if in three years those persons 
were three or four times a-pieco at Dunmaino, and they 

343 



The Annesley Case. 



Baron swear truth, it Avill bo of weight in the question whether 
a\vson ^jj^,,.g ^..jg ^ child or not. For, admitting Colonel Palliser 
and tlie other witnesses to be there four times a year, you 
are the judges whether it is probable that there was a child 
there and unknown to them. The separation is agreed on all 
hands to have been in the year 1716, and some little time 
after that the child was brought home to my Lord Altham's 
house. Dyer swears the child was not brought to Dunmaine 
in his time, but the witnesses for the plaintiff say either 
from the separation or soon after, and that the child con- 
tinued in the house with Lord Altham till about the year 
1724. You are to observe that my lord left Dunmaine about 
summer, 1717, the separation was in February, 1716-17, and 
Lord Altham came up to Parliament and after that went to 
Kinnea. The Parliament sat down the 27th of August, 
1717. Then you will consider what has been sworn to of 
my lord's behaviour to this child all that time. During this 
period of time at Kiimea, Carrickduff, Cross Lane, and Frapper 
Lane, there are many witnesses on both sides that give 
a most contrary testimony to one another ; there are 
witnesses on both sides that I cannot say who to 
disbelieve. There are many of them that I cannot 
disbelieve who swear to his being treated as a legitimate son. 
There are many of them, whom I also cannot disbelieve, 
who give a contrary testimony and say that he was treated 
as an illegitimate son; and Colonel Harman, Dr. Medlicott, 
and Colonel Wall gave an account of my lord's manner of 
calling him his bastard son. And in my apprehension, if 
the witnesses deserve credit, my Lord Altham did during that 
time treat him to some persons as his lawful son, and to 
others as his illegitimate son. You will consider the temper 
and disposition of Lord Altham and the circumstances he was 
in. He was a man not of prudence either as to the manage- 
ment of his fortune or family. You will please to consider 
in what manner to account for this behaviour of his, whether 
there may or may not be any reason for treating an illegitimate 
son in some companies as a legitimate son, and whether there 
may be at any time any reason for treating a legitimate son as 
an illegitimate one. A man comes into the country where 
he was not known before, and has a child that he had not by 
his wife ; perhaps he may have reason for treating him as a 
legitimate son. A man may carry an illegitimate child abroad, 
and visit with him in the neighbourhood, and pass him for his 
legitimate child, for perhaps he might be glad that that person 
whom he visited should not know him to be a bastard ; but a 
man can have no reason in my apprehension for treating a law- 
ful son as an unlawful one. Then you will consider the 

344 



Baron Dawson's Summing-Up. 

several schools the child was put to by Lord Altham. You Baron 
wiU consider whether these schools were fit schools for my ^"^^^^ 
lord, even in indigent cii-cumstances, to put his lawful son to. 
You will consider the consequence of my lord's being under 
the influence of Miss Gregory. The consequence was that this 
unhappy child was thrown abandoned to the world at not ten 
years old. Here you will consider whether a treatment of that 
kind bespeaks him to be his legitimate or illegitimate son. 
Had he been a legitimate son, surely my Lord Altham must 
have had reflection enough to have considered what a dis- 
honom-able action he was doing publicly. On the other hand, 
you wiU consider that the influence of Miss Gregory might 
weU be carried to make him doubt whether this child was his 
or not, if the child was by an improper woman. In the next 
place you will consider the situation and behaviour of the 
mother, that is, the tender sex, and their tenderness to their 
children is hardly to be got the better of at any rate. Lady 
Altham was three years in Eoss, and there is but one testimony 
of her seeing him then, and that is the man that swears he 
made him shoes. From this she comes to Dublin, and lives 
near my lord at the time this child is with him. It seems 
a little odd that she made no attempt to have this child 
brought to her but by Catherine O'Neill, and I submit it to 
you how far what she says can have weight, for she says that 
my lady declared she would be glad to see the child, but she 
was afraid the servant that brought him would lose his bread. 
Can such a thing as that be put in competition with the tender- 
ness of a mother for a child? That, gentlemen, is for your 
consideration. ^Tiy, then, gentlemen, my lady comes to the 
house of Aldonnan King, and he tells you that for thirteen or 
fourteen months she frequently spoke to him of her family 
affairs, yet never mentions she had a child. It seems veiy 
strange. A woman, where ehe fancies herself injured, is mighty 
apt to tell the injuries done her to everybody, and to aggravate 
her distress by saying she was deprived of the comfort of see- 
ing her child. This was not to he entrusted to Alderman 
King, but communicated to Mrs. Hodgers, whom she had never 
seen but once. You will consider this, gentlemen. In the 
year 1727 my lord died, and there can Ix; no doubt hut my 
lady knew it. There is not any proof of her liaving made any 
inquii-y after the child ; it is true my lady might have made 
the inf|uiry after the child, and it might have proved ineffectual 
because of his l)eing transported so soon after ; but of this 
there is no evidence. But how comes it she did not make 
the inquiry, especially where her own interest was to guide 
her in that case? And yet here is the force of the mother 
and interest joine<l together, and they work nothing on my 
Lady Altham. You will ronKider that the estate of this family, 

:>4S 



The Annesley Case. 



Baron on failure of issue, being to go to Arthur, late Lord Anglesea, 
Dawson j^. ^^..^^ ^^^^ interest of the mother to have made a strict inquiry 
after him ; and yet there is a witness for the defendant, William 
Napf>er, who tells vou that he had a letter of attorney from 
Lord Anglesea to take possession of the Koss estate, and by 
virtue thereof made numbers of minutes to several tenants, 
and no objection he ever heard made that Lord Altham ever 
had a son. That, gentlemen, seems a little extraordinary. 

The next thing that offers, and the strength of the case for 
the plaintiff is, the transportation of him and the directions 
the defendant gave to Mr. Giffard for the prosecution of him 
after his return into England. You will consider, as to the 
transportation, whether the defendant was the occasion of it or 
not. If you should be of opinion he was you will consider 
how far that will have an effect upon you. He claimed to 
be the lawful son of Lord Altham ; you will consider whether 
that might have been an inducement. If you should be of 
opinion that the story on each hand carries an equal degree of 
probability, this of the transportation should, in my appre- 
hension, add gi'eat weight to the case of the plaintiff. If, 
on the other hand, you should not think them equally probable, 
you will consider how far the transportation will make you 
give credit to a fact you should otherwise think improbable. 
The same may be said in respect of the attempt in England in 
relation to the prosecution of him there. I have mentioned, 
before that several of the witnesses on both sides cannot be 
very well depended upon, and therefore I think the probability 
or improbability of the thing may be of great weight in deter- 
mining the present question. 

Then Mr. Caldwell, attorney for the plaintiff, delivered to 
the jury the issue which they were to try. Afterwards the 
jury withdrew into the jmy-room, and in about two hours' time 
they brought in their verdict. 

Clerk op the Pleas — Crier, make proclamation. 

Crier — Hear ye, hear ye, &c. 

Clerk of the Pleas — Gentlemen, which do you find, for the 
plaintiff" or the defendant? 

Sra Thomas Taylor, foreman — We find for the plaintiff, with 
6d. damages and 6d. costs. 

Counsel for the Plaintiff — My lords, I pray judgment on 
hehalf of the plaintiff, on reading this verdict, and that it 
may be recorded. 

Clerk of the Pleas reads the verdict. 

Mr. Lee, of counsel for the defendant — My lords, I hope your 
lordships will not now give judgment, for I humbly conceive 

346 



The Verdict. 

the plaintiff's declaration is bad, and that he can't have judg- 
ment [and he offered some matter in law in arrest of the 
judgment]. 

Court — Gentlemen, we will adjourn to nine o'clock to-morrow 
morning. 

The Crier accordingly adjourns the Court. 



Saturday, 26th November, 1743. 

Counsel for the Plaintifp — My lords, we pray judgment on 
behalf of the plaintiff on this verdict. 

Court — Take judgment. 

Counsel for the Defendant — I pray this writ of error may 
be received. 

Court — Allow the writ of error. 



347 



APPENDIX. 



Trial of Mrs. Mary Heath. 

The evidence of certain witnesses in the Trial of Mrs. Mary 
Heath for perjury, at the Bar of the Court of King's Bench in 
Ireland, on Friday, 8th February, 1744. 

Mr. Thomas Higqinson, sworn. 

Wr. SoLiciTOE — Mr. Higginson, pray did you know the late Lord 
and Lady AJtham? — Yes. 

Do you remember to have seen either of them, and when, in the 
year 1714 or 1715? — I saw Lord Altham very often; I had the honour 
to receive from the year 1710 Arthur Lord Altham's renta for part 
of his estate. 

You saw my Lord Altham very often? — I saw him very often. 

Do you remember to have seen either of them about the middle of 
April, 1715? — Yes, the middle of April, 1715, I called at Dunmaine. 

How came you to call there? — I was receiver to Arthur Lord Altham, 
and Arthur late Earl of Anglesea. 

Go on, and give an account of what you know of this family? — My 
lady I saw when I called at Dunmaine, my lord was not at home. 

Do you know anything of her being with child? — That time I saw 
her I took her to be big with child. 

CouKT — What time was that? — In the middle of April, 1715. 

Mr. Solicitor — What time in April do you say? — The middle, in 
Easter week, 1715. 

Where did you see her then? — At Dunmaine. 

Inform the Court and jury what look or appearance she had of being 
with child ? — She appeared to be big with child to me, and towards the 
last month of her time. 

Tell us wherefore it is that you have made yourself sure it was then? 
— I had a pocket-book in which I kept my memorandums ; I was receiv- 
ing rents for the Earl of Anglesea, and I sent my son to receive the 
rents of the Nanny-water estate for Lord Altham ; I knew he would 
be at home with the money, and I called there for Lord Altham to 
send one to Enniscorthy with me for the money. 

[The witness's voice being weak, Mr. Smith, an officer of the Court, 
is directeJ to repeat what he should say.] 

Mr. Smith— Tell what you say, sentence by sentence, and I will 
repeat it. 
348 



Appendix. 



HiGGiNSON — I called to see if Lord Altham was at home, to send one 
with me to Enniscorthy, to get some money for himself. 

Did you see my lady or my lord at the time? — My lady only. 

How can you be particular concerning the time of your being at 
Dunmaine? — Because the days that I received Lord Anglesea's rents 
I had it entered in m^- pocket-book, and I gave the book to the Prime 
Serjeant Malone at the last trial. 

\Vhat were the consents of that book? — Lord Anglesea's receipts. 

You say Lady Altham looked like a woman big with child? — She 
did. 

What conversation had you with her then? — Very little, only that 1 
asked for my lord, and told her what I called for, for I dared not go 
into the house, for if I had Lord Anglesea would have turned me out 
of the receipts of his rents. 

Tell what passed between my lady and you? — I told her I called 
to get my lord to send one with me to Enniscorthy, and my lady came 
down and made me drink, and I drank a good deliverance to her lady- 
ship in two glasses of white wine. 

Who did you see with my lady? — The maid was there, but I do not 
know her name. 

Now, tell us how did you dispose of yourself after you left Dunmaine? 
— I went to Enniscorthy, and dined with !Major Rogers that day there. 

^Tiere did you go from thence? — To a friend's house in Wexford 
early next morning, Thursday morning. 

RecoUect the day you were at Dunmaine? — I was there on Thursday 
going, and Tuesday coming back. 

What day did you go from Dunmaine to Enniscorthy? — I came from 
Dunmaine to Enniscorthy on Tuesday. 

How long did you stay at Wexford then? — Not above an hour, I 
believe ; we had but one pint of wine. 

Did you see Lord Altham at that assizes? — Yes, he gave me the 
receipt. 

Did you see my lady there? — No, I did not, nor hear of her. 

Do you believe if she had been there you would not have known it? 
Could she be there and you not see her? — She might be there for me. 

Pray, sir, you say you were receiver to my Lord Anglesea. Did 
there come any account to the Earl of Anglesea of the birth of a child? 
— Several of Roes tenants did not come to Lord Anglesea in July 

(Cross-examination . ) 

Mr. Le Hunte — Pray, sir, do not you say that you were at Dunmaine 
on Easter Tuesday? — I was there on Thursday and Tuesday. 

Were you there on Eaeter Tuesday? — I was. 

What year was it? — By my books, on Easter Tuesday, in the year 
1715. 

Where were you on the Monday before? — I believe I was at Mr. 
Giffard'fl. I was at Houghton's; I know I was in that neighbourhood 
on Easter Monday. 

Upon your oath, sir, where were you on Easter Monday? — I believe 
I was at Mr. Thomas Houghton's on Easter Monday. 

349 



The Annesley Case. 

How near is that to Dunmaine? — I believe four or five miles. 
Wliy aro you so certain of being at Dunmaine and at Houghton's on 
Eatster Monday and Tuesday? — Those were the days I received money, 
and they were entered in my book ; that is the reason of my certainty. 

Do you know a phice called Peppard's Castle? — I do know it. 

How far from Dunmaine is Peppard's Castle? — Which way would 
you have me go? 

The common road. How many miles distant is it? — I believe 16 
miles. 

Where were you upon Easter Sunday? — I believe at Clomines. 

How near is that to Dunmaine? — Four or five miles; I do not know 
well. 

How far is Clomines from Peppard's Castle? — I believe as far as 
Dunmaine it cannot be less than 16 miles. 

Look at that paper and see if it be your handwriting. Is that your 
name? — I believe it is. 

^^^len you gave receipts did you date them on the days the tenants 
paid you the money? — Some I did and some I did not. 

Explain yourself? — When I would go abroad I would leave receipts 
drawn according to the days the tenants promised to pay their rents, 
some with my wife, and some with my son, and some with Timothy 
Murphy that received for me. 

Is that all your handwriting? — I believe it is 

Mr. Le Hunte — I desire that paper may be read against himself. 

Cleek of the Crown — " Received from Mr. William White now 
and formerly the sum of twenty-five pounds ster., in full his last 
Michaelmas rent, due out of Peppard's Castle, &c., to the right 
honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesea, received by his lops order this 
18th April, 1715. £25. Tho. Higginson." 

CouBT — That is Easter Monday that year? 

Higginson — I will tell your lordship how that was. I was to pay 
!Major Rogers money for timber for my Lord Anglesea, and I left 
my son the receipt to get the money, who was to meet me there with it. 

Is the date your own hand? — Yes, I believe it is. 

And did you date receipts before you received the money? — Yes, very 
often. 

'Mi. Le Hunte — What time did you enter this receipt in your book ? — 
When I came home again. 

When was that? — I entered it on Wednesday, when he brought me 
the money to Enniscorthy. 

What money did he bring? — He brought me sixty odd pounds; I 
gave him eight receipts to call upon the people with them, and I got 
the money on Wednesday. 

When did you enter those receipts in your book? — I believe I entered 
them before I went from home. 

How so? — Because they promised me the payment. 

Did you draw this receipt at the time that it bears date? — I gave 
this receipt to Tim Murphy or my son before I went away, and they 
told me they would be there that day with the money. 

See if this be your book and handwriting? — It is. 

350 



Appendix. 



Was this book kept by you? — It was. I lent it to Mr. Wilson. 
Is that entry your handwriting? — It is my handwriting. 
When was it entered? — It was entered when I came back. 
Mr. Mark Whyte reads the title, viz. — 



Peppard's Castle 



Mr. Willi;ini|is 
White 



Debtr. 



Year Month 
and Day 

1715 
March 28 
April 18 



Contra I 



2 Bills- 
Dit. in full Michaelmas 
1714 



Credr. 



4 10 — 
11 17 S 



Mr. Le Hunte — Where was this book kept? — When John Wilson 
cam.e to receive the rents of Lord Anglesea after me I lent it to him. 

Court — Can you now say that it was the 18th of April, Easter 
Tuesday, that you were at Dunmaine, since it appears by your book 
you entered receipts of that date elsewhere? — I left eight receipts for my 
son and ^lurphy to give the people that paid the money. 

How came you to enter them the 15th and 18th? — Because they were 
to go there them days. 

Since your book shows your handwriting at another place, the time 
you say you were at Dunmaine, can you, from any other circumstance, 
recollect that it was Tuesday, the 18th of April, that you were at Dun- 
maine? — I believe it was Tuesday, the 18th, by my pocket-book. 

CouBT — See and get an almanac for the year 1715. Does your pocket- 
book and this book contain the same things? — The pocket-book is of 
different things from this book. 

Mr. Le Hunte — Did not you swear on the trial in the Exchequer that 
you received £4 from Mr. Houghton the day before you went 
to Dunmaine? — I believe so. 

What day did you receive that money? — I believe it was on Monday 
morning. 

What was the denomination that rent was paid for? — I do not know 
indeed. I know no denomination now, but only BaUysop and Dun- 
maine. 

Did not you swear that you received from Mr. Giffard of BaUysop 
£10 on Tuesday?— Yes, I did. 

Was not that the day you went to Dunmaine? — Yes, I believe I did 
that morning. 

Did not you say you received from Patrick Sutton £20 the day 
before? — I rc-eived some on Friday and Saturday, and wanted forty 
shillings, and they sent it after me on Monday. 

Did you swear or did you not that you received Sutton's money on 
Monday? — I wanted about forty shillings, and I got that on Monday 
or Tuesday following. 

Upon your oath, sir, did you not swear that you received £20 from 
Colonel Sutton on Monday?— I do not know whether I did or no. I 
did re<eive £20 in all, but I said then, as I say now, that there was 
forty shillings behind, and he sent it after me on Monday. 

VVhat day did you receive the money from Mr. Giffard?— On Monday, 
I believe. 

What did you receive the money from Mr. Sutton for?— It was for 
the rent of Clominos. 

35' 



The Annesley Case. 



Look at that book now. Is that your handwriting? — The upper 
part is ; that is my handwriting. 

And whose is the other! — That is my son's. I told Counsellor Ford 
80 before, at Wexford. 



Clomines 



Col.Wallis 
Arrea.rs 



i.s I Debtor 



Year Month 

and Day 

1713 

Novenib. m 

(His own writing) 1714 June I7th 

(His son's writing) 1715 April 5th 



Contra I is i Creditor 



Per Higginson's Account 

Do 

Do. 

Mr. Gifford 

(His own writing) 



233 


14 


lU 


48 


(10 


(K) 


52 


00 


00 


30 


00 


00 


363 


14 


Hi 



Were you present at the time it was entered? — No, he was at Ross, 
and Joe Wliite. the merchant, gave him a bill for £30, and I allowed 
this as cash. The tenants all received it as cash ; they had a share 
in it, and I allowed it as cash. 

Why did not you make your entries in your book at that period of 
time? — I had not that book with me. I had lent it to John Wilson. 

Was the money paid by the tenants at the time set down in the 
book? — That was the bill that every one of them had a share in. 

Was the £30 received on the 5th April? — The bill wae. 

Did not you swear you received the £30 on Monday? — It was good 
£30 to me, and so I swore I received it on Monday. 

Where is your pocket-book? — I have it not now. 

Did not you swear upon your former examination in the Exchequer 
that you were agent to my Lord Anglesea from the year 1711 to the 
year 1717?— No, not till the year 1717. No, if it be 1717 it is wrong 
printed. 

Upon your oath, were not you Lord Anglesea's agent in the year 
1717?— I was not discharged till 1718 or 1719 for that matter, but Mr. 
Wilson came in before that. 

Did you continue agent for my Lord Anglesea after the year 1717? — 
No, not that year, but I received for him in 1716. 

You received in the year 1716? — I did then in several places. 

Upon your oath, did you in 1717? — I cannot charge my memory; 
I am sure I did in 1716. 

Look at this bond and see if it be your handwriting? — I did see it; 
it is. 

Mr. Le Hunte — My lord, this bond is to show that he was dis- 
charged long before this time, and we desire it may be read. 

Mr. Mark Whtte reads part of the bond, which bears date the 
26th day of December, 1715. 

Mr. Le Hunte — Did you ever settle any account subsequent to the 
account in this book? — Yes, I did, six months after. 

Mr. SoLiciTOE — Would you be understood that that was the book 
you carried about with you? — No, this was the book that was left at 
home. 

WTiat book did yon take with you commonly? — I carried a little 
pocket-book about me. 

Mr. Recorder — When you came home to that book, did you make 
entries different from your pocket-book? — Some I did. 

352 



Appendix. 



How so? Then you had no certain guide for keeping your accounts? 
— Whenever I was promised any money I entered it down in that book 
the day I expected to receive it, and left receipts with my wife or son, 
for i was very much abroad. 

How could you enter the day before you knew you would be paid? — 
They would keep the receipts till they got the money. 

Serjeant Maeshall — My lord, I desire the whole conditions and ail 
the bond may be read. Mr. Whyte read only a part of it, and I must 
insist upon the whole being read, to show that he might have received 
the rents for a year after the date thereof. 

Mr. BowDEN reads the bond as follows : — 

" Know all men by these presents, that I, Thomas Higginson of 
Rahingurrin, in the county of Wexford, gent., am held and firmly 
bound unto the Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesea, in the 
sum of £1000 sterling, lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid to 
the said Arthur Earl of Anglesea, or his certain attorney, executors, 
or administrators, to the which payment well and truly to be made 
I do bind myself, my executors and administrators, firmly by these 
presents, sealed with my seal, and dated this 26th day of December, 
Anno Dom. 1715." 

" Whereas, the above named Arthur Earl of Anglesea did con- 
stitute and appoint the above bound Thomas Higginson to be collector 
and receiver of his rents, arrears of rents, revenues, duties and profits 
of his lordship's estate in the county of Wexford for some time past. 
And whereas the said Arthur Earl of Anglesea did, on the first day 
of May laet annul and make void the said power ; now, the condition 
of the above written obligation is such that if the said Thomas 
Higginson, his executors, or administrators, do and shall, on or before 
the 1st day of ?tlay next ensuing the date of these presents, deliver 
up to the said Arthur Earl of Anglesea, his heirs or assigns, a just 
and true account of all such rents, duties, arrears of rents, fines, 
issues, goods, chattels, profits and perquisites as he the said Thomas 
Higginson hath at any time heretofore levied or received for the 
use of the said earl, as his collector or receiver, and do and shall 
then pay or cause to be paid unto the said Arthur Earl of Anglesea, 
his heirs or assigns, all such sum and sums of money as shall then 
appear to be and remain due to the said earl, his heirs or assigns, on 
balancing of such accounts ; and also do and shall at any time when 
demanded, well and truly account for, and pay unto him the said 
Arthur Earl of Anglesea, his heirs or assigns, any sum or sums of 
money that sliall or may at any time or times hereafter, within the 
space of one year from the date above mentioned, appear to have been 
received by him, the said Thomas Higginson, for the use or on account 
of the said earl, and not accouritefl for with him by the said Thomas 
Higginson on or before the Haid 1st day of May next ensuing (if 
any such there be), that then tlie above obligation shall be void, 
or else it shall stand in full force and virtue. 

"Tiro. HiooiNsoN, 1715. 

" Sealed and delivered in presence of us, 

" Den. Brien. 
" John Wilson, junior." 
I A 353 



The Annesley Case. 



Serjeant Mabshall — He had a right, it appears, to collect all the 
arrears that were due for a year; he had a year allowed him to gather 
them in. 

Mr. Recorder — The bond says, if it ehall appear within the space 
of one year that he had received any sum or sums of money, but 
there is no power given him to receive any rents. 

Mr. Le Hunte — Were not you tenant to part of Arthur Lord Alt- 
ham's estate? — Not at all. 

Did not you hold a house from him in Ross? — I never had a 
house in Ross. 

Who came into possession of Lord Altham's estate upon his death? 
— I do not know. I was not employed then. 

W^ere you receiver to Lord Altham till his death? — No; till the 
year 1717 or 1718. 

How far is Ballydaboy from Dunmaine? — I cannot tell. 

How near is it to Peppard's Castle? — I believe within a mile. 

Is that your handwriting? — Yes, I saw it before. 

Look at it again, W^as it entered the time it bears date? — I believe 
the Wednesday before I left home. 

How came you to enter it then? — There was a fair to be on the 
lyth, and that was the reason. 

Ballydaboy, &c. Law : Nangle is Debtr 



Year Month 


Contra is Credr. 


and Day 




1715 




April 19 


Ditto 



(The bond is given to the jury.) 

Serjeant Marshall — You will observe, gentlemen, there are two 
clauses in the bond ; the first that he shall account for all sums 
received, and the next that he shall accoimt for all sums he should 
receive. 

Court — Not at all ; he was superseded. If you mean to produce 
other evidence to the same thing, I ehall stop you. We have been 
near twelve hours in Court, and cannot adjourn. 

]Mr. Edmond Malone — And they said, my lord, they would not 
take up eight hours in ten, if the trial should hold no longer. 

Rev. Mr. William Hervey, sworn. 

Mr. Malone — Do you remember the time the Pretender's men were 
tried at the assizes of Wexford? — I remember when Mr. Walsh and 
Mastertou were tried for enlisting men for foreign service. 

Were you at that assizes ? — I was there and heard the trial. 

Pray, sir, can you fix the year when they were tried ? — They were tried 
in Lent assizes, 1715. 

Was it Spring assizes ? — It was Lent assizes ; but 1 believe it happened 
in Easter that year. 

W^ere you in court at the trial of Walsh and Masterton? — I was in 
court. 

Who were the judges? — My Lord Chief Justice Forster, my particular 
patron and friend ; his brother was my tutor when I was in the college. 

354 



Appendix. 



Who was the other judge ? — I do not remember any other judge, but I 
know he was there. 

Were you in court at the trial ? — I was. 

Then I ask you, sir, whether or no you saw my Lord Althara at that 
time in town? — I did. I saw him at his lodgings and at the court-house, 
and had discourse with him in both places, and never saw him before 
or since. 

In what clothes was he dressed then ? — To the best of my remembrance 
he was in black. 

Were there any ladies in court at that assizes ? — There were several 
ladies in court. 

Were they of any fashion or rank in the country there? — I saw a 
lady of very good appearance though homely features, and I asked 
who she was, and I was told 

Serjeant Marshall — You are not to say anything you were told. 
You must declare nothing but what you know yourself. 

-Mr. Heevey — They said it was Lady Altham. 

Mr. Malone — Did you know that lady you saw to be Lady Altham? 
— I am morally assured it was her. 

Did you ever see her after? — I never saw her afterwards. 

You saw other ladies there as well as this lady? — I did. 

Did you know them? — I took notice of none but Mrs. Giffard, for 
she was my relation by marriage ; and I had another reason wliy I 
took notice of her, which was that I have often heard her blamed 

Was Mrs. Giffard in company with that strange lady? — She was. 

Do you remember any quarrel upon the account of beating a man 
at the assizes? — Yes, I remember it very well, and have reason to 
remember it. 

Serjeant Tisdall — My lord, I do not see to what this examination 
can tend. 

Mr. Malone — It is in order to fix the time particularly. 

Court — Go on, sir. 

Mr. Hervet — I took a King's evidence to Wexford, one Sinclare ; 
he had gone to France with several others, and when he came home 
he was afraid I would represent him to the justice of peace and have 
him prosecuted, to avoid which he said he would come in and make 
a discovery if I would get him pardoned. I said I would, and after 
1 had him I mounted him before my portmanteau and took him to 
Wexford. While he was there some servants of my Lord Althara 
fell upon him and beat him for being an informer, and while they 
were beating him I catched them, and they had almost murdered 
him. I took them to Colonel Ram's lodgings, and we went to my 
I»rd Altham to his lodgings and showed him the bloody condition 
that this fellow vnm in. 

Uow did you know where my lord lodged? — I was informed that 
my lord and lady lodged at Mr. Sweeny's. 

Go on, sir? — We went there to show my Lord Altham the treat- 
ment his Hervants had given this man, and my lord said he waa 
ashamed of their behaviour ; that they should bo punished for it, 
and said they should come into Court. 

.355 



The Annesley Case. 

And did they come into Court? — There came but two into Court; 
the rest made their escape. 

Were they punished for this assault? — My Lord Chief Justice 
Forster was very angry, but fined them only £5. 

Mr. Recorder — My lord, thus he ascertains that Lord Altham 
lodged at Mr. Sweeny's. 

Mr. Malone — You say that you saw Mrs. Giffard in the Court- 
house, and that she is your relation? — Yes, her brother and I took 
two eisters in maniage. 

Did she sit next to my Lady Altham that day? — I do not know 
whether she was next to her, but she was very near her. 

Now, I ask you whether that lady had any signs of pregnancy or 
not upon her? — I took particular notice of her. She was, to the best 
of my remembrance, dressed in black, was a full-chested woman, and 
had a fine slender waist. 

Did she appear to you as a woman with child? — She might be very 
young with child for aught I know, but there was no visible appear- 
ance of her being with child. 

Mr. Harwabd — This evidence is founded upon a supposition that 
the lady he saw at Wexford was the Lady Altham ; he says he was 
only told it was she, and cannot say it was of his own knowledge. 

Mr. Hervet — I am pretty certain the lady I saw was Lady Alt- 
ham. I am told, sir, that you are Counsellor Harward. Am not I 
to believe you are? I am told that gentleman is Counsellor Daly. 1 
am morally assured of it, and I believe it. 

(Cross-examination.) 

Serjeant Marshall — Pray, sir, did you see that lady go into the 
Court-house that you were so particular in your observations about? 

Mr. Hervey — I cannot say I did, but I saw her in Court. 

Do you know Mr. Caesar Colclough? — Yes, I do very well. 

Did not he sit by that lady a great part of the time? — I cannot 
charge my memory. As I told you before, I took no notice of any 
but Mrs. Giffard. 

I ask you, sir, whether Mr. Colclough w-as there or not? — He might 
be there ; and I cannot say whether he was or not. 

Who were the persons tried? — Jack Walsh and Mr. Masterton. 

They were tried that day? — They were, sir. 

Are you sure they were tried at that assizes? — I heard them both 
tried, and, I believe, at that a.ssizes. Walsh was tried first. 

Are you positive that they were both tried? — Indeed I have no 
reason to doubt but they were ; they were there, and appeared there 
at the bar both of them. 

Were they convict«d or acquitted? — Acquitted. Mr. Walsh made a 
very good defence. 

Whereabouts were you in the Court? — I was very near the judge. 

Did you or did you not see Mr. Colclough there? — I cannot say I 
saw Mr. Colclough. 

Did you see Colonel Loftus there? — I cannot say I saw Colonel 
Loftus. 

356 



Appendix. 



Do you recollect any gentleman of the country that you saw there? 
— Why, do you believe that I wae not there? 

It is no matter what I believe, but can you name any one gentleman 
that was there? — Lawrence Esmond of Ballynastraw was there. 

And you remember that Mrs. Giffard was there very positively?— 
I do, sir. 

Now, I ask you, was not Mr. INIasterton tried the summer assizes? — 
Indeed I do not know ; I know he was in the dock then. 

Did not you say you were sure he was tried that assizes? — I do not 
know whether he was tried then or no, but he was in the dock. 

Did you see this lady anywhere else but in the Court-house? — I saw 
her nowhere else but there, neither before nor since. 

Did she sit or stand during the time you saw her? — I saw her both 
sitting and standing. 

Whereabouts? — Almost opposite the sheriff's box. 

Did you talk to iirs. Giffard at that time? — I did not speak to 
either of them. 

Did you speak to her at that assizes? — I do not remember I did; 
but if you please I'll give the reason why I took notice of her more 
than another. 

Give your reason? — She was a near neighbour of Lord Althani, and 
was the most conversant there of any others of the neighbourhood ; 
and my lady not bearing the fairest character in the world, I heard 
Iklrs. Giffard blamed for having such an intimacy there ; and there- 
fore when I was told this lady, that made a very good figure by her 
dress, was my Lady Altham, I took notice of ^Irs. Giffard being in 
her company ; and whether Mrs. Giffard knew it or not I cannot tell, 
but I have heard her censured for being in it. And if they had lived 
within 3 miles of me, as they did of her, I would not have had 
converse with either of them. 



Mrs. Saeah Sweeny, stcorn. 

Mr. Le Hdnte — Where do you live, madam? 

Mrs. Sweeny — I live at Wexford. 

What is your Christian name? — Sarah. 

How long have you lived there? — These four or five-and-thirty years. 

Pray, do you know !Mr. John Masterton? — I do. 

Did you know Mr. Walsh? — I did. 

Do you remember that they were charged with any crime at Wex- 
ford?— I do. 

When?— In the year 1715. 

Did you know the late Ivord or Lady Altham?— I did. 1 knew 
them both, but my lord much better than my lady. 

Was it usual for you to set lodgings? — It was. 

Can you recollect whether they lodged nt any time, and when, in 
your house? — They lodged with me in the year 1715, in April. 

Do yon know upon what occasion, or what was a-doing in Wex- 
ford at that time?— The aBsizes was nt that time. 

Pray, madam, can you recollect how long they lodged with you, 

357 



The Annesley Case. 

and when they came— whether before or after the assizee?— They 
came just at the assizes, and they stayed no longer than the assizes 
held ; four nights or five, I cannot tell which. 

Can you tell me whether any gentlewoman came with Lady Altham 
to the assizes?— Yes. there did come Mrs. Giffard, and Mre. Mary 
Roe, and there came I\Irs. Heath. 

Was Mrs. Heath a servant to any of the ladies, or whom?— She wa» 
her ladyship's woman. 

Where did she lodge? — At my house, sir. 

Can you be certain that it was in the spring assizes, 1715, that 
they were there? — I am very sure of it. 

Pray, can you give any reason for that certainty? — I can give 
several reasons if there was an occasion. 

Please to inform the Court and the jury what your reasons are?— It 
was in the year 1714 that I came to that house I now live in. I 
came to it "in July, just before the Queen died, and in 1714 Mr. 
Sweeny was ill of a fever, and was just recovered out of it as her 
ladyship came to my house; he was recovered the March before she 
came. 

When she was there did you frequently see her? — I did see her 
very often, sir. 

Where did she generally diet in Wexford?— She dined and supped 
at my house. 

Did she dine and sup at your table? — I dined with her at the table, 
and with my lord, when he dined there. 

Had she any signs of breeding or being with child? — I did not 
perceive any, neither do I believe she was with child. 

Could she have been with child then and you not know it? — If she 
had been with child I should have heard it. 

(Cross-examination.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald — You say, I think, that my lady came to lodge at 
your house in April, 1715? — Yes. 

What particular reason have you for fixing it in April? — I tell you, 
in July, before the Queen died, I came to the house, and the April 
following she came to lodge there. 

Where did you live before? — At Kenny's Hall, a little out of Wex- 
ford. 

How long did you live there? — From the latter end of the year 
1713 till we left it. 

What particular time did you leave that hall?— In July, 1714, just 
before the Queen died. 

Was that house, where you received Lord and Lady Altham, repaired 
when you took it? — We repaired it before we came there. 

After you took the lease, what time did you take to repair it? — 
Not very long ; I cannot tell how long. 

Did the repairs take up three months? — I believe it might take 
up three months; but I was sick at that time, and do not know how 
long it was. 
358 



Appendix. 



What time was it you took the lease? — We took the lease in the 
year 1714. 

What time of that year? — In the beginning of 1714. I have the 
lease if you have a mind to see it. 

Do you know a man called Nicholas Duffe? — I do. 

What is he? — He was master of a vessel for my husband. 

Did he live with you then?— He did not live with us then. 

Wjis not he master of the ship at that time? — He quitted that 
employment before I was married to Mr. Sweeny. He went master 
before for him. 

Did he hve in your house in April, 1715? — No, he did not. 

Did he live with you when you took the house and you were sick? — 
He was at eea in 1714, when I was ill of the fever, and he came home 
at that time in the year 1714, and was not employed after, for my 
husband parted with the ship. 

You say he was not in April, 1715, in your house? — Not to live 
with me. 

Was not he then master of your husband's ship? — He was not in 
that employ ; we were building a ship then. 

Was not he in the town of Wexford in the year 1715? — I do not 
know but he might. 

Do you know Captain Maxwell? — I do, very well. 

Do you know his wife? — I do. I am very well acquainted with her. 

Did they not visit you in April, 1715? — I cannot tell in what year. 
I do not know but she might be there, and they lived in the house 
where I lived in before. 

Do you know one David ConoUy? — I do not know any such body 
as Conolly. I know one David Connell. 

Was he a servant of your's at that time? — He was not a servant, 
but in and out v.ith me. 

How long did he live with you? — Really, I cannot tell. 

What did you think of that man; what is his character? — Why, 
really, I never thought it worth my while to inquire. Ho did my 
business well enough. 

Did you and Mrs. Maxwell visit frequently? — Yee, wo did, and I 
was godmother to one of her children. 

What is Mrs. Roe's name now?— Mrs. Crumpton. 

Did you declare to any person of your acquaintance in Wexford 
that you were not sure when Lady Altham was at your house? — I do 
not know whether I did so or no ; to be sure at the beginning I could 
not recollect it, but after, when I considered about it, I found it out. 

Did she never lodge with you but once? — Never but once. 

Was she never there at the water drinking season? — She never was. 

And that time she lodged with you was at tho assizes? — It wjus at 
that time. 

Mr. SMiTH^This lady ha« mentioned that her sister, who is now 
Mrs. Crumpton, came to Wexford at that time in company with I^ady 
Altham. She was then called Uoo, my lord. We shall now produce 
her to the same point. 

Court — Do not you think you have proved it already without pro- 
ducing her? 

359 



The Annesley Case. 



Mr. Daly — I would produco Mrs. Giffard and no more to that fact, 
I own it. 
CouBT— Call Mis. Giffard. 



John Tench, Esq., sworn. 

ATr, Spring — Pray, sir, inform the Court and the jury whether you 
had any knowledge of Mrs. Pigot of Tyntern? 

Mr. Tench — I had, sir. 

You did know her? — I knew her, sir. 

Was any friend of yours concerned for her in her affairs? — My 
father received her rents for above thirty years. 

Who was concerned in the management of her affairs and receipt 
of her rents in the year 1715? — My father was. 

Can you give the Court and the jury an account where Mrs. Pigot 
was in the month of November, 1714, and fi'om thence down to the latter 
end of the year 1716? — From my own knowledge I do not know 
where she was, but from letters I can tell you. 

Have you any reason to enable you to form a judgment where Mr. 
Tench was in 

CouKT — Where was Mrs. Pigot in November, 1714? — Of my own 
knowledge I cannot tell where she was. 

Mr. Sphing — Are your father's accounts and papers and letters come 
to your hands? — I have them, sir. 

Have you any accounts relating to Mrs. Pigot's affairs in the years 
1714, 1715, or 1716 in his handwriting? — I have, in the year 1715. 

Court — It is proper to ask him if he has such ; but what then ? 
That won't prove where Mrs. Pigot was. 

Mr. Spring — My lord, my next question is whether he has any 
letters of Mrs. Pigot to his father? 

CoTTRT — That will not do. If she was produced here as a witness, 
you might produce her letters to confront her. We are not now 
upon the proof of similitude of hands. 

Mr. Spring — Were you at Tyntern in the year 1714? — I cannot 
tell where I was in 1714. 

Were you there in the year 1715? — I was there in 1715. 
Were you in May, 1715? — Indeed, sir, I cannot tell. 



James Walsh, sworn. 

Mr. Edmund Malone — We produce this witness, my lord, to show 
that IMrs. Pigot was in another country, at another place, attending 
her husband, who broke his leg, at the time they pretend she was god- 
mother to this child. 

Mr. Edmund Malone — Are you a married man? 

James Walsh — Yes, sir. 

In what family did your wife live when you married her? — In the 
family of Mrs. Pigot. 

WTiat Mrs. Pigot, sir?— ilrs. Pigot of Tyntern. 
360 



Appendix. 



Did you know Counsellor Pigot? — I did, sir, very well. 

I ask you, then, if you recollect at any time when any and what 
accident or hurt happened to him? — I do, sir. 

Tell it? — Mrs. Pigot went to Dublin in 1714, about November or 
December, I am not sure in what month, and some time after Christ- 
mas Mr. Pigot went to London, and he came back again. 

Was it in January, 1714-1715, that he went to London? — I believe 
thereabout. 

Well, go on? — He came back, I believe, about March, or thereabouts, 
and he went to hie estate in the county of Limerick, and happened 
to break his leg or thigh in the year, 1715. 

What time in the year 1715? — April, I believe, or March, or there- 
abouts. 

At what place did he break his leg?— They tell me, sir, at Glen- 
goole ; I was not with him there. 

How do you know he broke his leg? — I knew, because Mrs. Pigot 
went from Dublin to him. 

What time did she go to him? — She went about April, 1715. 

Where was she to go to? — Either to the county of Tipperary or 
county of Kilkenny, I cannot tell which. 

How soon after he went to the county of Limerick did she leave 
Dublin? — I cannot tell exactly how soon she left Dublin, but she 
stayed there till she brought ^Ir. Pigot home. 

To what place? — To her house upon Arran's Quay. 

What time was that? — I cannot exactly tell the time; I believe it 
was in the year 1715. 

How long might she have stayed away with him? — I cannot tell 
exactly. I believe it was more than a month. I believe it was two 
months. I do not exactly know. 

When they came to Dublin how long did they continue in Dublin 
without going into the country again? — They stayed in Dublin till 
ehe buried Mr. Pigot, in 1717. 

Are you positive that she remained all that time in Dublin without 
going anywhere to the county of Wexford? — Yes, sir. I can say 
that safely, and that she went home in the year 1717, and sent me 
back to Dublin to make a monument for Mr. Pigot at the outside of 
St. Paule Church. 

How long after their return to Dublin was it that he died?— He 
died in the year 1717. 

CoORT — Are you sure that Mrs. Pigot was not at Tyntern in the 
year 1715? — She was not, upon my oath. 

Nor in the county of Wexford? — Indeed she was not, my lord. 

How many years did you live with her in all?— I cannot tell 
how many years, but I lived with her from his death to her death. 

Ajid you are suro slio was not in the county of Wexford from 
the tim« «hc came to Dublin till she buried him? — I am f^ure ehe 
was not. 

(Crof<8-cxamination. ) 

.Mr. If AUWARU -Pray, sir, where were you in Chriatmaa, 1714? — 
In Dublin, sir. 

361 



The Anneslcy Case. 



Where did you live in Dublin?— On Arran's Quay. 

Were you a housekeeper there? — I generally kept Mr. Pigot's 
house when they were in the country, but that year I did not. 

Did you keep his house in Chri.«tnias, 1714?— I did not, air. 

Where were you then? — On Arran'e Quay. 

Where were you in the beginning of March, 1714? — I was in Dublin 
then. 

Where in Dublin? — In lodgings of my own. 

Where were you May-day, 1715?— In Dublin, Sir. 

Are you sure you were? — I was indeed, sir. 

Where in midsummer, 1715?— In Dublin. 

Now, I ask you upon your oath, was Mr. Pigot or Mrs. Pigot in 
their house at Dublin in the beginning of March, 1714? — No, they 
did not come to Dublin till November, 1714. 

Where was Mrs. Pigot in March, 1714?— In the county of Wexford. 

Court— Do you mean March, 1713-14, or March, 1714-15?— In March, 
1714-15 she wae in Dublin. 

Where was she in March, 1713-14? — I cannot tell, my lord. I 
believe in the county of Wexford. 

Mt. Harward — Where was Mr. Pigot the 1st of May, 1715?— I 
cannot tell you whether in Dublin or that he was sick where he 
got his hurt. 

Can you say, upon your oath, where he was the 1st of May, 1715? 
— Indeed, I am not sure whether he was in Dublin or whether he 
was where he broke his limb. 

Now, friend, where was Mrs. Pigot when the great eclipse was? — I 
believe she was with her husband where he broke his leg. 

Were you in the county of Tipperary at the time of the great 
eclipse? — I was not. 

Where was she at that time? — I suppose she was with Mr. Pigot. 

Don't be supposing with me. You know you ought to tell nothing 
but what you know. Do you know where she was at the eclipse? — 
She was, and I take it upon my oath, she was where Mr. Pigot broke 
his thigh. 

Where was that? — In the county, I believe, of Tipperary. 

How do you know that she was not in the county of Wexford? — 
Because I know she was not. 

W^ere not you in summer, 1715, in Dublin? — I was, part of the 
summer, 1715. 

How do you know that she was where her husband lay ill at the 
time of the eclipse? — I know it very well. She was with Mr. Pigot 
where he broke his leg. 

Did you see her with him? — No, I did not. 

Why will you swear then she was with him? — Why, because I am 
sure of it. 

How are you sure of it? — She told me she was going to him, I 
knew that she went there, and we all knew that she went there. 

Have you any other reasons for being so positive? — There are 
letters from under her hand, giving an account that she was there. 

What letters? — To her agent. Captain Tench. 
362 



Appendix. 



Pray, now then, is not that the reason that you know she was 
there? — It is only one reason. 

Tell another reason? — Why, I am sure she was there, and all that 
were along with her told me so. 

Do you know of your own knowledge where she was? — No. 

Court — Did you see Mr. Pigot when he came to Dublin? — I did. 

In what condition did he then appear to you?- — He appeared as if 
he had a leg broke,, and was very bad. 

CouKT (to the jury) — The witness says he saw Mrs. Pigot go down 
to her husband, and saw them return together. 

Mr. Recorder — WTiere he swears that she went to her husband at 
a certain time, that she said she was going to her husband, and that 
he saw her come back with him, with his broken leg, it is as full 
evidence as is necessary. 



Mrs. Penelope Halpen, sworn. 

Jlr. Lee — What was your maiden name? 

Mrs. Halpen — Hunt, sir. 

Whose daughter are j'ou? — Daughter to John Hunt of Glangoole, 
near Killenaule, in the county of Tipperary. 

V.Tiere did he live in the years 1714, 1715, and 1716?— He lived 
there, sir. 

Do you remember the eclipse of the sun? — I do. 

Where were you at that time? — I was at my father's house, then. 

Were you acquainted with Counsellor Pigot and his wife? — I was. 

What was the occasion of your being acquainted with them? — He 
broke his thigh near my father's house, and came and lay there 
till he was cured. 

When was that? — In the year that the eclipse happened. 

Was Mrs. Pigot there? — She was there at the time of the eclipse. 

How long did she stay after the eclipse? — I cannot tell indeed. 

How long was she there before? — I cannot tell indeed. 

Was she a fortnight, or a month, or how long? — I cannot toll how 
many days. 

Who came there first, he or she? — He came first. 

How long was he there before she came? — He was a few days 
before she came. 

Who came with her? — Mrs. Wallace. 

In what state of health was he? — He was in his bed witli that 
broken leg. 

How long did he keep his bed? — I cannot tell how long he kept 
it; whether a month or six weeks I cannot tell. 

Court — How long did hie wife stay with him? — I believe more than 
a month. 

Mr. Lee — Were they visited by anybody while they stayed there? — 
By several. 

Can you rocollect any one that visited them? — Mr. Ciesnr Colclough 
was them, whether to pay him n visit or not I cannot tell, but 1 saw 
him there. 

363 



The Annesley Case. 

Did they leave your father's house together ?— They did, to the best 
of my memory and knowledge. 

Where did they go to from your father's house? — I cannot tell 
indeed. 

Court- -Did they come to your father's before or after the great 
echpse ? — Before. 

Was Mrs. Pigot there before the great eclipse?— She was, indeed. 

(Cross-examination. ) 

Serjeant Tisdall — Can you be positive of the time that she came 
to your father's house? — I cannot tell what time. 

Can you say whether she was there at the time of this eclipee? — 
Yee. 

Are you sure she was? — I am sure she was. 

Was any person with her at that time? — Mrs. Wallace and she were 
there. 

Have you any particular reason for being so certain? — Yes, sir. 
I was in the garden when the eclipse happened, and I called Mrs. 
Wallace out to the garden to look at the eclipse with me. 

WTien was the eclipse? — I cannot tell, sir. 

How long after the eclipse did Mrs. Pigot stay? — I cannot tell 
indeed. 

How long did she come before it? — Nor how long before she came. 



C^SAE CoLCLOTJGH, Esq., sworn. 

Serjeant Tisdall — Were you at the spring assizes of Wexford in 
the year 1715? 

C^SAR CoLCLOUGH — I was sir. 

Did you see Lady Altham or Mrs. Giffard there? — I did not that 
I know of. 

W'ere you in the Court-house when the Pretender's men were tried? 
— I was. 

Pray, sir, were Lady Altham and Mrs. Giffard there? — To the best 
of my knowledge they were not. 

Did you sit by them at those trials? — I did not, sir. 

Pray, sir, did you hand either of them into Court? — I handed 
neither of them into Court, by the virtue of my oath. 

Did you attend the whole trial? — I did, and was there before and 
after. 

You were acquainted with Mr. Pigot, I presume? — What Pigot? 

Counsellor Pigot, that was married to Mrs. Pigot of Tyntern? — 
Yes, he was married to my relation. 

Can you Fay where he was in spring, 1715? — To the best of my 
knowledge, he was then in England. 

Do you remember his breaking his leg? — I do, sir. I remember he 
broke it at Glangoole, in the county of Tipperary. 

Pray, sir, what year was that? — In the year 1716, to the best of 
my knowledge. 
364 



Appendix. 



Did you go to the county of Tipperary to see him?— I was in 
town here when he broke his leg, and my cousin Pigot wrote to me. 
She had a jointure upon that estate, and wrote to me that I should 
come 

Mr. Daly — I must object to this evidence Mr. Colclough is going 
into. Those letters, sir, that you received from Mrs. Pigot are not 
evidence. 

Serjeant Tisdall — Do you know Dennis Redmond? — I do. 

Pray, sir, what character does he bear? Is he a man to be credited 
upon oath? — Upon my word, I believe he is to be credited upon his 
oath. If you will ask me for my reasons I will give them to you. 

What is his general character? — He has as good a character as any 
man of his abilities that I know of in the world. I have known him 
these twenty years. 

Pray, sir, do you know when Counsellor Pigot died? — I believe in 
the year 1719, or thereabouts. He was buried in St. Paul's Church. 
The time of his death is on his tomb there. I believe it was 1718 
or 1719, or thereabouts. I am not certain. 

Court — Do you know whether Mrs. Pigot went to her husband when 
he broke his leg? — She did; and stayed with him till he came to 
Dublin. 

Do you remember what year it was? — It was in the year 1716, aa 
near as I can recollect. 



(Cross-examination.) 

Mr. Recorder — Can you swear that Lady Altham was not at the 
assizes in the year 1715? — I can, as positively as I can swear any- 
thing in the world. 

Can you, that she was not at the assizes? — I can, that she was not 
in the Court. 

Can you swear that she was not in the town? — I cannot take upon 
me to swear that she was not in the town. 

Can you swear that Mr. Pigot did not break his leg in the year 
1715? — I can, to the best of my memory. 

But can you positively swear that he did not break his leg in the 
year 1715? — I can ewear that it was not in the spring of 1715, because 
I was at the Wexford assizes, and my cousin wrote to me to come 
to her. 

Where was she? — She was at Glangoole. 

At whose house there?- At one Hunt's; it was a thatched house. 

Do you remember Penelope Hunt, a daughter there?--! cannot 
tell. I might see women there, but did not take such notice as to 
remember them. 

Do not you believe that Mr. Hunt's family know when Mr. Pigot 
broke his log? Was not it broke near them? — Uymn my word, sir, 
I do not believe they knew better than I, because I was directed by 
my cousin to come down, nn<\ I did ; and I found her there, and 
surgeons setting his log, and I am sure it was the year 1716. 

Where wa« Mrs. Pigot in the yf-nr 1715?— She was in the winter, 

36 S 



The Anneslcy Case. 

1714, 1 ntn positive that she was a.t Tyntprn, and she seldom left it 
till towards May, or thereabouts. 

Do you know James Walsh? — He did not live with her then. 

Did not he live with her in the year 1715? — No, sir, nor his wife 
neither. 

Where did they live? — They lived in town, or somewhere else, but 
not in our family. 

Was not he an attendant of the family at that time? — No, sir, I 
believe he was then a doorkeeper to the playhouse. 

Upon your oath, do you know that of your own knowledge ?^ — I do 
know it so far, as I had it from his own mouth, upon my oath, that 
he was a doorkeeper at the playhouse. 

How long before that was he in their service? — He had not been 
in the service before. 

Was not he in the service at all? — He was afterwards, but he was 
not in the service at the time ]\Ir. Pigot broke his leg at all. 

Jury — Was Lord Altham at the assizes of Wexford in 1715? — I do 
not recollect anything about him at all. I was told he was, but 
he was a man taken very little notice of. 

Do you know whether he was in Court or not at the trial? — I do 
not know whether he was in Court or not. 

Mr. Recorder — Do you remember where you were at the time of 
the eclipse?— I was in the county of Wexford; I was hunting on the 
mountain of Forth at the very instant of the eclipse. 

Did you or did you not see Lord Altham at Wexford assizes? — I did 
not see him there, to the best of my knowledge. 

Recollect, and say upon your oath, whether you did or not? — I do 
not recollect. I cannot say I did not see him or that I did, upon my 
oath. 

John Cliffe, Esq., sworn. 

Mr. Bradstreet — ]\Iy lord, this is the evidence that I have already 
opened. 

What is become of your father? 

Cliffe — Dead. 

What profession was he of? — A lawyer at the bar. 

Do you remember where your father was in May and June, 1715? — 
I cannot take upon me to say where he was; he was in this kingdom, 
but whether in country or town I cannot take upon me to say from 
my own memory. 

Wliere were you at that time? — I believe I was at the college. 

Pray, recollect and consider now where your father was in those 
months?— I cannot take upon me to say, from my memory, where he 
was in May, 1715. 

Where do you say you yourself were at that time? — I was in the 
college at that time. 

Did your father attend the terms regularly at that time or not? — I 
believe he did ; but I cannot take upon me to say that I remember 
his keeping terms regularly. I believe he did. 

Mr. Bradstreet — It appears to your lordship that Mr. Cliffe was a 

366 



Appendix. 



lawyer at the bar. Now, we are to falsify the testimony of some 
witnesses produced on the other side, who swear he was god-father 
to this child, and therefore I hope we shall be at liberty to show some 
rules of the Court, to prove that !Mr. Cliffe was here in May and 
June in the year 1715. 

Serjeant Tisdall — I desire to know first whether you have other 
questions to ask the witness. 

^Ir. Bradstkeet — ^ly lord, I remember when the testimony of a 
person was defeated by showing that the name of a lawyer was to a 
certain bill. He said that the lawyer was dead before that time ; 
the record was produced, and his name was at the record in the cause 
of Reynolds and Sandys. We produce this witness to show that those 
witnesses who swore his father was godfather to my Lord Altham's 
child swear false ; cannot we, in addition to his testimony, show the 
rules of the several Courts that his father made motions in at that 
time? 

Mr. MacManus — My lord, I only get up to answer Mr. Bradstreet. 
I do apprehend that a bill in Chancery is not evidence, and the reason 
is becau.«e any man may file a bill in the name of another ; and there- 
fore unless you can show some proceedings have been had upon it, 
you cannot produce it in evidence. The same rule will hold in a 
cursory motion in Court, which may be made by one person and have 
another's name to it. 

Mr. Daly — It is never done on the equity side ; it is always moved 
in Court publicly. 

CoTJBT — I think it must appear who the counsel is that makes the 
motion. 

Mr. MacMantjs — The attorney is the person to whom you must give 
notice, and is answerable for all the proceedings ; the lawyer's name 
may be, and oft€n is, mistaken by the oflBcer of the Court, it not being 
material what lawyer moves. 

Court — The question is, whether attested copies of the acts of a 
Court of record may not be produced, proved, and given in evidence 
to falsify a witnese, to show that a person sworn at a certain time 
to be in one place was then at another? 

Mr. Daly— The indenture of a fine is read against a man every day. 

Mr. Solicitor — By Act of Parliament. 

Mr. Daxy — It is not made evidence by Act of Parliament. 

CoTTKT — Put the case distinctly. 

Mr. Bradstreet— I say, my lord, I put it thus. After the evidence 
of thi.s gentleman, his father appearing to be a lawyer at the bar, 
and after the evidence that has been given on the other side of his 
being godfather to a child at Dunmaino at such a time, I offer these 
rules of his on motion to show that he was not at Dunmaine at that 
time, but in these Courts, and I instanced the case of Reynolds and 
Sandy."} for a precedent. 

Mr. RoBiN.s— Are they litigated motions? 

Mr. Bra D.STHKET— They are litigated, aii<l hearings and open 
pleadings. 

367 



The Annesley Case. 



Mr. Thomas Bourk, sworn. 

Mr. Bradstreet — What is that in your hand? 

Thomas Bourk — Rules in the Court of Exchequer in Easter term, 
1715. 

Are they all out of that Court? — They are, sir. 

Are they true copies? — They are. 

Serjeant Tisd.\ll — I believe it is an established rule in evidence that 
the (jreatest certainty must be had that the nature of the thing to be 
proved will admit of. This is evidence of no sort of certainty, 
because it depends upon a person not on his oath, and because he 
incurs no penalty by falsifying the name of the lawyer. He is not 
upon his oath not to put the name of the lawyer to the record, and it 
is no more than a falsifying evidence ; and besides, records can be 
produced as evidence between the parties to them. 

Mr. Mac^Ianus — I apprehend it no sort of evidence at all. 

Mr. Bradstreet — What I apprehend is this, that this is evidence 
which is contradictory to the evidence that they have produced to this 
point. Here are motions that have been litigated, that have not 
passed, of course ; but I say they have litigated, so that it is to be 
presumed that he was litigating these matters ; and if so, it is 
impossible he could be at Dunmaine at that time. And as euch, I hope, 
is good proof, and especially since he is dead. 

Court — I think it may be read to contradict a witness ; and I know 
that the officer is so far from being permitted to do this thing of 
falsifying a name that he is under a great penalty for it. 

Mr. Bradstreet — The register is answerable, though committed by 
the deputy. 

Court — I think it may be read in contradiction to the witnesses. 

Mr. Mac^Ianus — Your lordship is going to establish a rule that 
may be of dangerous consequence. 

Court — I am not going to settle a rule, but I only tell you what 
I think is and ought to be allowed as evidence. The Journals of 
both Houses of Parliament have been produced in evidence. 

Pilr. Walsh — I beg leave to consider this 

Court — Read the notes and orders. 

Mr. Whtte (reads)— This is the 5th of ]\lay, 1715. 

"Powell V. Goodwin Ex. of Goodwin. 

" ^Ir. Cliffe pro Q. prays interest for the 246Z which the de. 
fendant's testator received since they were paid the mortgage money. 

" Mr. Baly — I do not oppose plaintiff's having a decree for the 
money, but they move for interest, and I am surprised at their 
demanding of interest. 

" Cur. — Take a decree for the money reported, and interest for the 
money reported from the time the report was confirmed, and take an 
injunction forthwith to be put in possession, and take a decree for 
the rent that fell due the 25th of March last." 

Court — He must be personally in Court at that motion. 
Mr. Whyte— The next is the 6th of May, 1715. 
368 



Appendix. 

" Bermingham et al. v. Lord Shelburne. 
"Mr. Cliffe pro Q. moves on the last notes for putting off the giving 
of the judgment of the Court on affidavit." 
Th6 next is the 9th of May, 1715. 

" Lawless v. ^Aee. 
" Mr. Cliffe 2}ro Q. moves on the last order for putting off the 
hearing a week." 

The next is the 11th of May, 1715. 

" Bermingham et al. v. Lord Shelburne. 
'VMr. Cliffe prays a day to speak to this matter." 
The next is the 12th of May, 1715. 

" Archer v. Rogers. 

" Mr. Cliffe pro D. moves for time to answer personal interro- 
gatories a£ to several books, in regard the books are very large, and 
produces an affidavit of this matter." 

The next is the 13th of May, 1715. 

' Wattson v. Butler. 
"Mr. Cliffe pro D. moves for to dissolve the injunction." 
The next is the 14th of May, 1715. 

" White et ux. v. Gale et al. 
"Mr. Cliffe pro Q. moves on the notes upon the hearing." 
The next is the 31st of May, 1715. 

" Thomas White v. David Dunharr. 
"Mr. Cliffe opens the defendant's answer." 
The next is the 1st of June, 1715. 

" Archer v. Rogers. 
" Mr. Cliffe pro D. the plaintiff never demanded any custom for 
timber these 14 years." 

The next is the 18th June, 1715. 

" Bermingham v. Lord Shelburne. 
" Mr. Cliffe pro Q. moves on the order for liberty to read the bill 
and answer in the cause of Stewart against the Lord Shelburne." 
The next is the 23rd of June, 1715. 

" King v. Gore et al. 
" Mr. Cliffe pro D. moves on affidavit for a commission to examine." 
The next ia the 25Ui of June, 1715. 

" Bermingham ct al. v. Lord Shelburne. 
" .Mr. Cliffn pro Q. Stewart ct al. have a decree against Lord Shd- 
burne, Emnit et al., and they have a decree for the 29,503, and also 
for the 21,032 acrcp, and on the hearing of this cause the bill of 
Stewart and othrr.s and the Lord Shclbnrne's answer was offered to be 
read, but the Court has not yet read that bill and anpwor ; prays that 
bill and answer may be read, before the bill is dismissed." 

I II 369 



The Annesley Case. 



Mr. Bradstreet — How many of your name were at the bar in 
the year 1715? 

Mr. Cliffe — I know of no person of that name but my father. 

Did you ever attend the Courts? — I did not, sir. 

Did you know Mr. Anthony Colclough, sir? — Yes. 

Of what religion was he? — He was reputed a Papist. 

Is he alive or dead? — 1 have heard that he is dead. 

Did not ho die a Papist? — He was reputed a Papist during his life. 

(Cross-examination . ) 

Mr. MacJIanus — Did you attend the terms in the year 1715 or 1716? 
—I did not attend in 1715 or 1716. 

Was your father the only person of the name that professed the 
law? — There might be another, but I never heard of any. 

Mr. Walsh — It has not been taken notice of in what terms these 
motions have been made. Here is a chasm of about a fortnight 
between the first and last motion, and there is so between the two 
terms. The first rule is on the 5th of May, the last the 25th of June, 
so that it must be in two terms that they were made. 

Court — So it was. 

Mr. Walsh — Well, then there was a short vacation, when he might 
have been in the country, and stood godfather to the child. 

Court — But you will consider one of the witnesses said the christen- 
ing was four or five weeks, and another three or four weeks after 
the birth. 



Mr. John Masterton, sworn. 

Serjeant Tisdall — Were you at the assizes of Wexford in spring, 
1715? 

John Masterton — I was, sir. 

Pray, sir, were you arraigned there? — I was. 

Can you say whether there was any lady at the Court-house the 
day you were arraigned ?^ — There were some gentlewomen there, but 
I know of no lady. 

Did you take notice of any of them? — There were two aunts of mine, 
and a sister of mine, and two cousins-german. 

Who are they? Name them? — My aunt Swords, my aunt Talbot, 
my sister Colclough, and my aunt Talbot's two daughters. 

Court — Did you know Lady Altham then? — I did. 

Did you see her in the Court-house that day? — I take it upon me, 
to the best of my knowledge, to say that I did not see her. 

Do you know Mrs. Anne Giffard? — I did know her formerly, but 
have not seen her since the last time I saw her at Wexford. 

Did you see her in Court? — To the best of my knowledge she wae 
not there. 

Was she in Wexford at that assizes? — If she was she was not in 
Court. 

How do you know? — Because I did not see her. 
370 



Appendix. 



And might not she be there for all that? — She might be in Jieguise. 
may be. 

Would you know her now if you saw her? — I do not believe 1 
would, for I live very remote from that part of the country, and have 
not seen her a long time. 

Might not she be there and you not see her? — Not, except she kept 
behind backs. 

Serjeant Tisdall — Did you know Lady Altham before that assizes? 
— I have seen her before at Ross, at Captain Butler's, my wife's 
father-in-law's. 

Were you acquainted with her face? — I was. 

Did you or did you not see her in the Court at the assizes? — I did 
not see her to the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Dalt — Was Lord Altham there?— He was. 

Serjeant Tisdall — Was Caesar Colclough there? — He was. 

Whereabouts was he m the Court-house? — I do not remember where- 
abouts he was. 

CoTTBT — This is improper ; it is not regular, Mr. Serjeant. It is 
evidence to the same fact. Your evidence now must be only to dis- 
credit the witnesses. 

Serjeant Tisdall — My lord, it is a new fact arisen upon their testi- 
mony. 

Did you see Lady Altham there at any other assizes? — I did. 

At what other assizes? — I cannot tell which assizes, but it was after 
that, and I have seen Mrs. Giffard with her, and it was not the 
assizes I was tried. 

Are you sure it was not the assizes 1715? — It was not. 

Were you tried at that assizes?— I was arraigned, and tried then 
and acquitted with honour. 

Was Mr. Walsh tried at the same time? — He was not tried by the 
same jury, nor the same day. 

Pray, were you both at the same time in Court? — We were, sir. 

Mr. Recorder — I ask you, sir. were you under so little concern 
a» that you reckoned all the ladies in the Court? 

Court — You establish him as a witness properly produced if yon 
cross-examine him. 

John Mahtkkton — There were more women that I do not remember 

Serjeant Tlsdall — We beg leave to produce Mr. Colclough. 

.TrRV (to Mr. Mastert m)— What was the day you were fried on?— 
I believe it was on Wednesday I w.i.<j tried, to the best of my memory, 
and I believe it was the 20th of April. 

On what day was Mr. Walsh tried? — Mr. Walsh was tried the 
day before me. 

Did the Court sit the day after you were tried? — I did not mind 
that, for I was drinking with my friends and minding other biiBinesp. 
and did not mind that. I believe the judges discharged the countrv 

Were vou in Court when Walsh was tried? — I was. 



371 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIKRARV 

Los Angeles 

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 



^ECV 



W 



ti'-[Fr.-',v 



IML OCT 17*73 
WOV 141373 



Form L9-Series 4939 



39. C839A 



UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 

H! 'V " !H 11' !l IP i|l I" " I !' IM I 



AA 000 637 114